Whenever I watched Mosconi I would swear running a hundred balls was the easiest thing in the world. He never had a tough shot. After watching him I'd run to a table *knowing* I could do it too -- he just made it look that simple.
Lou Figueroa
In every single straight pool tournament, you will hear this about the guy who wins.
- Thread starter CreeDo
- Start date
Whenever I watched Mosconi I would swear running a hundred balls was the easiest thing in the world. He never had a tough shot. After watching him I'd run to a table *knowing* I could do it too -- he just made it look that simple.
Lou Figueroa
In Mike Sigel's 150-and-out against Mike Zuglan, there was one moderately hard shot and that was a ball by the side of the rack up to a head pocket -- just after a break, I think. I don't recall any other shot that was a tester.
But I agree that in general a 100 ball run will have some number of 80% shots. In Lassiter's case that might include a couple of banks.
I played Mosconi an exhibition game and watched him play a hand full of times. And when he was on his game he made it look so simple.
His play was a notch above his competition.He was on his own level.
Pretty much like Tiger Woods in his prime.
Your Lassiter comment made me laugh. We were watching him playing straight pool and at one point he inexplicably banked a ball cross side. The thing was, all he had to do was walk around the table and shoot a ball straight in the corner.
Earl had a high run of 407
Earl and I played in a straight pool tournament in Portland Maine and did well despite people wondering about our "pattern play". Earl had a high run of 407 before that tournament so his patterns must have been "ok".
Earl and I played in a straight pool tournament in Portland Maine and did well despite people wondering about our "pattern play". Earl had a high run of 407 before that tournament so his patterns must have been "ok".
Dear MacGuy--
I think you ought to move Balsis up in your ranking of players. Back in the '70's I saw him play an afternoon and an evening exhibition of straight pool and shoot the most glorious straight pool you could ever imagine. When he sat down after the second exhibition and hung out with us, he said he had not wanted to say anything when he had arrived because he didn't want to build us up and then disappoint us, but two days before he had played an exhibiton at another place and had run three hundred (!) balls.
It should be added, he was a wonderful guest for the three or four days he spent with us. He was a fine instructor and an excellent companion. I remember in particular that one of the players brought his severely handicapped son to the exhibition and when Joe did trick shots the boy rolled over his wheelchair to the table and began to motion at spots on the table. It was clear he wanted Joe to play some particular shot, but it was also very unclear exactly what it was. Joe patiently puzzled out what the boy wanted him to do and then performed the shot several times to the boy's delight.
Joe's oft-repeated advice in straight pool was to move the cue ball as little as possible.
I think you ought to move Balsis up in your ranking of players. Back in the '70's I saw him play an afternoon and an evening exhibition of straight pool and shoot the most glorious straight pool you could ever imagine. When he sat down after the second exhibition and hung out with us, he said he had not wanted to say anything when he had arrived because he didn't want to build us up and then disappoint us, but two days before he had played an exhibiton at another place and had run three hundred (!) balls.
It should be added, he was a wonderful guest for the three or four days he spent with us. He was a fine instructor and an excellent companion. I remember in particular that one of the players brought his severely handicapped son to the exhibition and when Joe did trick shots the boy rolled over his wheelchair to the table and began to motion at spots on the table. It was clear he wanted Joe to play some particular shot, but it was also very unclear exactly what it was. Joe patiently puzzled out what the boy wanted him to do and then performed the shot several times to the boy's delight.
Joe's oft-repeated advice in straight pool was to move the cue ball as little as possible.
I in no way meant to sound like I was not respecting his play. He was for sure great but not one of the greatest players of all time. I think if not for Lassiter though he may have been more dominant in his era. It is important to also remember he may have been somewhat of a part time player for many years and not as dedicated as some others. He actually at one point went like 15 years without competing then made a comeback. His talent is without question.
He did as you say not move the cueball much. He liked to get the rack open then work the table a section at a time with minimum movement. Players like Mosconi and Crane always seemed to be picking around the rack with few balls ever moving above the side pockets. Balsis spread the ball as soon as possible. Different styles I guess and they both work for the players.
Not long before he died he was at the BCA trade show. They were having at the same time in the same building a Junior tournament. People at the show would wander in and out. I went in quite a few times and he was sitting there in the stands by himself watching. He may have spent half the day in there watching. I seriously doubt any of the kids had any idea who he was. He had aged though and if not pointed out I could see people not recognized him.
I saw him play a 1000 point catch up match over 5 days against Danny DiLiberto. They played 200 points a night. He drilled Danny like 2 to 1. When he got going he could really play.
The greatest tribute to Joe Balsis I've ever heard was when Johnny Ervolino told me that back in the 1970's, he feared Balsis more than Mizerak. Wow, strong stuff!
In 1980, at the age of 59, Joe reached the final of the PPPA World 14.1 Championship but ran into some young gun who was seeking his first world championship..........................................that young gun's name was Mike Sigel.
In 1980, at the age of 59, Joe reached the final of the PPPA World 14.1 Championship but ran into some young gun who was seeking his first world championship..........................................that young gun's name was Mike Sigel.
From a casual observer ...
My criticism of many of todays 14.1 players is that they often have to shot their way out of trouble. Without a doubt, many of them do this rather well. The old classic sraight pool players had a way of managing the rack so that difficult shots rarely came up.
In Willie Mosconi's case, it looked like he choreographed the whole run. He viewed it as following a pattern and just repeating it, with a little variation here and there. The results of his break shots were just as he planned it, knowing exactly what he'd shoot at next. The man had extreme control of the game. Other players of those days had similar knowledge and skill. This is very different from what I've seen in our top players today. Not knocking them - just different than the old days.
My criticism of many of todays 14.1 players is that they often have to shot their way out of trouble. Without a doubt, many of them do this rather well. The old classic sraight pool players had a way of managing the rack so that difficult shots rarely came up.
In Willie Mosconi's case, it looked like he choreographed the whole run. He viewed it as following a pattern and just repeating it, with a little variation here and there. The results of his break shots were just as he planned it, knowing exactly what he'd shoot at next. The man had extreme control of the game. Other players of those days had similar knowledge and skill. This is very different from what I've seen in our top players today. Not knocking them - just different than the old days.
It is not surprising to observe this because it is a direct result of focusing on this game throughout your whole career. Something that today's players could not afford to do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
I agree with much of what is said here, like any game, the individual dictates how they run the balls off, but, there are ways to play the game that make big runs easier.
I feel if 14.1 was THE game of today, solid logical pattern play, and high runs would naturally revert back to how the old school guys played it.....just because there are ways to make it easy.....
BUT, if you are a top notch pro and only play a few events a year IMO, the best theory to play by is to splash the balls open all over the table as quickly as you can, then use your rotation skills to get on a breaker. It is just the age of pool we are in today.
On the same note.....go back and watch the "old school" guys play 9ball! it seems laughable sometimes what they did. We would all be stunned at some of the banks they shot at, and the lack of safety play.....and the jump shot? huh?
G.
I feel if 14.1 was THE game of today, solid logical pattern play, and high runs would naturally revert back to how the old school guys played it.....just because there are ways to make it easy.....
BUT, if you are a top notch pro and only play a few events a year IMO, the best theory to play by is to splash the balls open all over the table as quickly as you can, then use your rotation skills to get on a breaker. It is just the age of pool we are in today.
On the same note.....go back and watch the "old school" guys play 9ball! it seems laughable sometimes what they did. We would all be stunned at some of the banks they shot at, and the lack of safety play.....and the jump shot? huh?
G.
This was funny to me because when Irving Crane was young he played a top player in a tournament where he left himself a sharp cut shot near the foot rail for the break shot. The cue ball was way up table. The startegy was simply to play safe but Crane goes for the shot, makes it and scatters the other balls. Plenty of other observers later told him no one in their right mind would've taken that shot.
Many years later he criticizes the Miz for doing something similiar. Too funny.
....................
Last edited:
Well, I think a lot of 14.1 players play too conservatively. If Crane was 60% on the tough cut, he was supposed to shoot it. Unless you are in a very good position to play a dynamite safe, you can't figure you're better than 50% to win a safe battle against another good player. So, take the 60% shot if that's what you have and it leads to something good.
On the other hand, if Crane had been playing a tough 60% cut that had no chance to break the balls but had a 20% chance to hang up in the pocket where the other player would have a good break shot and a start to a run, then Crane should have ducked. It seems to me that Crane may have made the right choice.
It's true that if you are always shooting 60% shots you won't get very far, but if you make a lot of 99% shots but then end up with a 60% shot (after the break or some such) you should usually go for it.
Related to which, I was sitting next to Mike Eufemia at the 1977 PPPA World 14.1 championships, and he spoke disgustedly of Crane's style calling him a showboat who was too in love with fancy shots.
I think that veteran 14.1 players develop a feel for how they themselves should play a given layout and when they see another player straying from that path, they get uncomfortable.
To me it sounds like even if today's players do play it differently, guys like Mosconi
knew how to stay out of trouble better. Two guys might both have the same high run,
but if one of them just gets in trouble less, his average in tournaments will always be higher.
Maybe we gotta stop using high run as a measuring stick.
I definitely don't think playing longer, slightly harder shots with more angle (i.e. "9 ball shots")
is a 'style'. It's not six of one, half dozen of the other.
It's flat out better to leave yourself less missable shots, more often.
So I guess I'm wondering if the youngish players today like Toastie really fail to do that,
or if they're doing it but just getting a bad rap.
I have a theory that contrary to what some old-timers say, today's fast cloth is harder to play on.
Sure you need to be able to hit a ball warp-speed if you are on slow cloth and fall straight in.
But on fast cloth your touch must be so perfect and nice. A small error in speed control turns into a
"shit-I'm-frozen-to-the-head-rail" disaster.
Maybe the old guys could more easily play simple patterns because slow cloth
made speed control easier... hitting 20% too hard on slow cloth, will carry the cue ball less far
than hitting 20% too hard on simonis 860. And you could hold balls from almost anywhere on slow cloth,
in situations where you'd have to settle on shape or go over-and-back playing on 860.
knew how to stay out of trouble better. Two guys might both have the same high run,
but if one of them just gets in trouble less, his average in tournaments will always be higher.
Maybe we gotta stop using high run as a measuring stick.
I definitely don't think playing longer, slightly harder shots with more angle (i.e. "9 ball shots")
is a 'style'. It's not six of one, half dozen of the other.
It's flat out better to leave yourself less missable shots, more often.
So I guess I'm wondering if the youngish players today like Toastie really fail to do that,
or if they're doing it but just getting a bad rap.
I have a theory that contrary to what some old-timers say, today's fast cloth is harder to play on.
Sure you need to be able to hit a ball warp-speed if you are on slow cloth and fall straight in.
But on fast cloth your touch must be so perfect and nice. A small error in speed control turns into a
"shit-I'm-frozen-to-the-head-rail" disaster.
Maybe the old guys could more easily play simple patterns because slow cloth
made speed control easier... hitting 20% too hard on slow cloth, will carry the cue ball less far
than hitting 20% too hard on simonis 860. And you could hold balls from almost anywhere on slow cloth,
in situations where you'd have to settle on shape or go over-and-back playing on 860.
Good points. Absolutely the less hard shots you leave yourself the higher the runs.
As far as the old slow cloth another thing to consider is that the balls composition was surly different in the past. How did that ( and the weight) of the balls factor in.
I know for myself this past 2 weeks I have been playing more straight pool now then I have the past 35 years combined. Two different rooms in Baltimore with speed of the tables that could not be more different. I prefer the slow place for straights as I can control my speed better.
If I am playing nineball I like the fast place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
you know guys , I was just re-reading this thread and it made me recall a day at the pool room when I was cleaning the tables. Andy, the best 14.1 player in the room was practicing and bored. He asked me why I didn't play more 14.1, and I said I can't get the hang of "patterns" or how to shoot the balls off. So, He racked em and set up a breaker, and handed me the cue.....he said this...you shoot, I'll tell you what and how to hit the shots.......ok lets go....
I ran 72 balls before missing a combo. On that day.... I realized it is NOT my pocketing ability that makes high runs....it was how to get around the balls.
From then on I practiced knowing high runs were out there waiting for my to unlock them.....not.....I'll never know how to do this!!!
G.
I ran 72 balls before missing a combo. On that day.... I realized it is NOT my pocketing ability that makes high runs....it was how to get around the balls.
From then on I practiced knowing high runs were out there waiting for my to unlock them.....not.....I'll never know how to do this!!!
G.
Bob, I had to think about your reply.
I'm not sure Crane had a 60% shot but for the sake of arguement, let's say he did. On the shot he had, the wildcard in going for it was the chances of getting a shot afterward. Since the cueball was comng from the back of the stack with no good control of where it would hit, there was no guarantee a clear shot was available. In that case, firing a 60% shot seems like a gamble. True, he could've missed it and also left his opponent with nothing - another gamble. At the top levels, I don't see these guys taking on a gamble too often. This is what you likely mean when you say they play too conservative. I'm thinking there's a good reason for that.
Anyhow, I figure if Crane's peers thought he clearly took the wrong shot, I have to think he lucked out by firing at it and coming out good.
I've heard similar stories where an experienced player coaches an average shooter through a straight pool run. The shooter may have had a previous high run of, say, 30 balls. But with guidance, they pull off an 80+. I've never witnessed this but reliable sources have confirmed this to me.
If this is all true, that says something about the power to recognize proper patterns.