Joshua Filler. Damn!

really can't find any flaw in his game. he hasn't got the svb break, but he's got a very good break. he's favorite to make just about any open shot or bank he can see. top notch kicking, safe play. fierce competitor.

what really stands him apart is the timing in his stroke. earl had it too, as does ronnie in snooker - never a trace of hesitation. it's a joy to watch. GOAT is a bit early imo, but it's hard to see him not rake in more world titles, US opens, etc
 
skogstokig said:
it's hard to see him not rake in more world titles, US opens ...
Click to expand...
Hope you're right, and perhaps you are, but we are seeing fields in the majors that are so much tougher and deeper than even ten years ago, and I think that even the most elite may struggle to win nearly as many majors as the nine ball greats of yesteryear. The most elite players today are simply at a level we've never seen before., and for every super-straight shooter there was ten years ago, there are two of them today.

Filler surely has some majors left in him, but he will have to work his butt off to get them.
 
skogstokig said:
really can't find any flaw in his game. he hasn't got the svb break, but he's got a very good break. he's favorite to make just about any open shot or bank he can see. top notch kicking, safe play. fierce competitor.

what really stands him apart is the timing in his stroke. earl had it too, as does ronnie in snooker - never a trace of hesitation. it's a joy to watch. GOAT is a bit early imo, but it's hard to see him not rake in more world titles, US opens, etc
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no fear of missing for Filler. Running out when he gets a look at the 1 ball seems like a mere formality for him. He and Earl in his prime both have this energy/attitude at the table where it’s like they are annoyed that they even have to run out the balls when everyone already knows they are out anyway.
 
sjm said:
Please, let's have a more civil debate. Obviously, you think I'm clueless, telling me that I have no idea what being the GOAT means and that I don't understand the criteria for the assessment of skill. I greatly respect your opinions on these matters, and I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there's room for interpretation in each case.

From my vantage point, decision making affects how much you get out of whatever skills you have. Give me too equally skilled players in their youth, and I'm betting that the one who does a better job of adding good conceptualization and defensive habits over time will end up being the better player. Such learning will, sometimes, come down more to work ethic and instruction than skill/talent.

Finally, based on the responses I've seen to this point, most feel Earl was more skilled than Filler but, and this is scary to say, Filler is still developing as a player and it's mind-numbing to think how much better a player he will become before he hangs up his cue.
Click to expand...
They play a little different style of game today than they did in the 80's and 90's. At least it looks different to me. No doubt there are more good/great players today and we keep seeing more emerge every year. The use of the jump cue has dramatically changed the way defense is played and what constitutes a good safety. Years ago if you hooked a guy he was kicking. Not today! The top players have really learned how to navigate the fast cloth and power the cue ball wherever it needs to go. Buddy played more like these guys today and he really stood out for his strong position play. Now there are fifty guys who can do everything Buddy did and do it just as good.

I contrast that style with the way Earl and Parica ran racks. Their special skill was rolling the cue ball all around the table like it was on a string. It wasn't so much about power as about control. They often hit the cue ball with extreme English to make it spin this way or that, avoiding obstacles and rolling to it's desired destination. It was beautiful to watch them play, such control of the table and the balls, like true artists at work. Earl was my favorite tournament player and Parica my favorite money player. As great as Filler, Gorst and others are today, I'm not sure what defense they would have for Earl at his peak when he was running six and seven racks match after match. Once he got rolling all you could do was get comfortable in your chair and hope for the best. I haven't seen that Earl in over twenty years now, but I'll never forget what I saw from the best seat in the house. In his prime he was not the beligerent malcontent he was to become later on. I prefer to remember the earlier version of Earl.

Parica on the other hand, just took those balls and shoved them up your azz. He was a relentless little warrior who never gave an inch and never let up for a moment. He could play .900+ pool all day and all night. You never got any air gambling with him. Once again, imo he would be a worthy opponent for any of the young guns in today's pool world. He might even teach them a thing or two. They are the two best I remember for having the highest level of skill at this game. And yes, they could play defense too when necessary. Both had a high pool IQ!

Everyone knows how much I like my good friend Dennis Orcollo. I think he is a great pool player with tons of heart. I've seen him make more comebacks to win matches than anyone else. Dennis never gives up and actually expects to win, no matter what the score. He is a great shot maker and brilliant tactician on the table, and he fears no competitor. In fact he relishes a match with a strong opponent. All that said, I would rank him second to Parica at 9-Ball or Ten Ball. Dennis might miss a shot once every hour or so. Parica might not miss anything for hours! Really!!
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Please, let's have a more civil debate. Obviously, you think I'm clueless, telling me that I have no idea what being the GOAT means and that I don't understand the criteria for the assessment of skill. I greatly respect your opinions on these matters, and I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there's room for interpretation in each case.

From my vantage point, decision making affects how much you get out of whatever skills you have. Give me too equally skilled players in their youth, and I'm betting that the one who does a better job of adding good conceptualization and defensive habits over time will end up being the better player. Such learning will, sometimes, come down more to work ethic and instruction than skill/talent.

Finally, based on the responses I've seen to this point, most feel Earl was more skilled than Filler but, and this is scary to say, Filler is still developing as a player and it's mind-numbing to think how much better a player he will become before he hangs up his cue.
Click to expand...
Pointing out where somebody is going astray in their logic or assessment or understanding is not uncivil. Sorry that you took it that way and it certainly wasn't intended to be received that way.

Decision making is just part of a multitude of skills that determine how good of a player you are. I'm really not sure why you are trying to address it separately for the purposes here as it doesn't in the least matter for the purposes here. The bottom line is that whoever in their prime would have beaten everybody else in their primes if they played multiple sets a day for enough period of time to be determinate is the greatest of all time regardless of how strong or weak any one of their particular subsets of skill were since it is the combination of all of their skills together that determine how good they play and who they would beat.

If you feel that somebody can be the greatest of all time when there is/was somebody else better than them then please make your case but I haven't heard one for that yet and it would seem to defy all logic from where I sit. If you do in fact agree that you are not the greatest of all time if somebody else is better than you then clearly who was the better player (as in who would have beat who) is the factor that matters when ranking for GOAT and all the other factors are just tie breakers and such when it is too close to call otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
Pointing out where somebody is going astray in their logic or assessment or understanding is not uncivil. Sorry that you took it that way and it certainly wasn't intended to be received that way.

Decision making is just part of a multitude of skills that determine how good of a player you are. I'm really not sure why you are trying to address it separately for the purposes here as it doesn't in the least matter for the purposes here. The bottom line is that whoever in their prime would have beaten everybody else in their primes if they played multiple sets a day for enough period of time to be determinate is the greatest of all time regardless of how strong or weak any one of their particular subsets of skill were since it is the combination of all of their skills together that determine how good they play and who they would beat.

If you feel that somebody can be the greatest of all time when there is/was somebody else better than them then please make your case but I haven't heard one for that yet and it would seem to defy all logic from where I sit. If you do in fact agree that you are not the greatest of all time if somebody else is better than you then clearly who was the better player (as in who would have beat who) is the factor that matters when ranking for GOAT and all the other factors are just tie breakers and such when it is too close to call otherwise.
Click to expand...
As you don't see matters like what constitutes the GOAT or what skill means in pool as matters of opinion, I'd rather not pursue this. You are a fine poster on this forum, and I'll save my energies for our next online encounter. Wishing you well until then.
 
jay helfert said:
They play a little different style of game today than they did in the 80's and 90's. At least it looks different to me. No doubt there are more good/great players today and we keep seeing more emerge every year. The use of the jump cue has dramatically changed the way defense is played and what constitutes a good safety. Years ago if you hooked a guy he was kicking. Not today! The top players have really learned how to navigate the fast cloth and power the cue ball wherever it needs to go. Buddy played more like these guys today and he really stood out for his strong position play. Now there are fifty guys who can do everything Buddy did and do it just as good.

I contrast that style with the way Earl and Parica ran racks. Their special skill was rolling the cue ball all around the table like it was on a string. It wasn't so much about power as about control. They often hit the cue ball with extreme English to make it spin this way or that, avoiding obstacles and rolling to it's desired destination. It was beautiful to watch them play, such control of the table and the balls, like true artists at work. Earl was my favorite tournament player and Parica my favorite money player. As great as Filler, Gorst and others are today, I'm not sure what defense they would have for Earl at his peak when he was running six and seven racks match after match. Once he got rolling all you could do was get comfortable in your chair and hope for the best. I haven't seen that Earl in over twenty years now, but I'll never forget what I saw from the best seat in the house. In his prime he was not the beligerent malcontent he was to become later on. I prefer to remember the earlier version of Earl.

Parica on the other hand, just took those balls and shoved them up your azz. He was a relentless little warrior who never gave an inch and never let up for a moment. He could play .900+ pool all day and all night. You never got any air gambling with him. Once again, imo he would be a worthy opponent for any of the young guns in today's pool world. He might even teach them a thing or two. They are the two best I remember for having the highest level of skill at this game. And yes, they could play defense too when necessary. Both had a high pool IQ!

Everyone knows how much I like my good friend Dennis Orcollo. I think he is a great pool player with tons of heart. I've seen him make more comebacks to win matches than anyone else. Dennis never gives up and actually expects to win, no matter what the score. He is a great shot maker and brilliant tactician on the table, and he fears no competitor. In fact he relishes a match with a strong opponent. All that said, I would rank him second to Parica at 9-Ball or Ten Ball. Dennis might miss a shot once every hour or so. Parica might not miss anything for hours! Really!!
Click to expand...
Fantastic post, Jay, and I agree 99%. The only point on which we are apart is that I don't feel I've ever seen anyone play position as well as Buddy Hall, past or present.
 
sjm said:
Fantastic post, Jay, and I agree 99%. The only point on which we are apart is that I don't feel I've ever seen anyone play position as well as Buddy Hall, past or present.
Click to expand...
Buddy played a better white ball than anyone. Almost never left himself a hard shot. If he got out of line, couple innings later he’s back in line again-more often than any player I’ve ever seen. He didn’t lose whitey very often. And his patterns in rotation were the best I’ve ever seen over a long period of time.
 
Gonna cover some ground in this post, three areas.

Pool Player 9, trying to determine who is the best in pool isn't quite as simple as you make it seem. For convenience let's give the top five players in the world a letter, ABCD and E.
A beats CD and E.
A loses to B.
B loses to CD and E.
This can happen. Who is the best player? Despite B having his number I would have to say A is.

About Buddy; I remember the first time I saw Buddy Hall. He was in Greenway leaning against the table by the counter or somewhere very close to that and the local shortstops who were pretty tough in that day were all gathered at his feet to pick up scraps. I was heavily involved in short track car racing at the time and I immediately was reminded of the short track guys gathered around Bobby Allison to pick up scraps when he was racing with us. This was so long ago that Buddy was tall and well proportioned other than the beginning of a pot gut starting to poke out like a bowling ball. Buddy's height and a lion mane looking head of curly hair and a beard made Buddy stand out and I noted his appearance while deciding there were probably plenty of easier propositions to take on than Mr Buddy Hall. I did eventually take on some pretty good players, stuck by my first impression of Buddy Hall!

To polish off the post I'll get around to the subject of the thread! I haven't paid much attention to young guns or "furriner" players in the last few years and I wasn't familiar with Joshua's game. I selected a match with Jason Shaw on youtube and commenced watching.

Filler has a neat compact game, reminds me more of Willie Mosconi than most of today's players. There were a couple times I thought he could have put a little more effort into position play. Each time he dropped the next ball and was right back inline so apparently he had given position all of the attention it needed. He also gives off that air of taking care of business like Willie. He is there to win the easiest way possible, no flash required although a perfect jump shot lent some excitement. Not too tough of a shot to make but perfect speed and height to get great shape on the next ball was very impressive!

Hard to expect he will have the kind of dominance some players of yesteryear have had, just because pool player's skills have flattened out a lot. Once the greatest might have been a ball ahead of the field. Now it is more like a quarter ball, too little to always show in a short race. Efren's insane dominance of the short race huge field one pocket at Derby City comes to mind. I don't think we are nearly as likely to see that in this era.

Not that the best are less great, the people around them are just much closer. Like many, I enjoy watching the ponies. I do OK betting the dogmeat races. Find a little class and bet it. I was looking at the form trying to pick a horse in a graded stakes for Thanksgiving day I believe it was. The "dog" in that race had a 99 speed index, everything else had ran under track records, 102 to around 110! I love watching these races but if I bet it is ten dollars or less. Twelve horses in the field and literally any of them could win on a given day. That is how I see today's pool world. I don't bet on other people's performance because it may come down to who got the most sleep last night or who got the best quality sleep.

Joshua does seem to have the potential to be great if he can avoid the bad habits that plague pool players. GOAT to date? Too soon to say. A player has to have a longer period at the top to make that call. Have to see how many titles he takes down in the next ten or twelve years. Whether measured by tournament or gambling prowess, I think durability is a huge part of being great.

Long post, I spent several days putting it together. Hopefully it doesn't take as long to read!

Hu
 
Fatboy said:
Buddy played a better white ball than anyone. Almost never left himself a hard shot. If he got out of line, couple innings later he’s back in line again-more often than any player I’ve ever seen. He didn’t lose whitey very often. And his patterns in rotation were the best I’ve ever seen over a long period of time.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and Stu about Buddy. Once he got in line he stayed in line! We all see good and even great players today get out of line and have to make a difficult shot to get back in line. They can do it too. Buddy didn't have to!
 
Efren on the other hand would lose the white ball and make a few trick shots and still get out. I suppose he’s just lucky 😉

It’s interesting how different players get the same result with different styles.
 
JAM said:
What's scary is I don't think Joshua Filler has even reached his peak yet, and he's winning back-to-back international competitions. There's no question his work integrity of practice, practice, practice has gotten him to where he's at today. It will be fun to watch him reach his full potential. He just might end up the Ronnie O'Sullivan of pool, and we can all say we knew him when . . .
Click to expand...
Hey, why not an exhibition match between O'Sullivan and Filler... snooker and 14.1, or whatever?
 
  • Love
Reactions: JAM
fan-tum said:
Hey, why not an exhibition match between O'Sullivan and Filler... snooker and 14.1, or whatever?
Click to expand...

both games are so specialized now that neither would stand a chance in the opponents main game. at least not in any longer race. but it would still be fun to see
 
fan-tum said:
Hey, why not an exhibition match between O'Sullivan and Filler... snooker and 14.1, or whatever?
Click to expand...
It would be a fun exhibition, more so than a challenge match, but the young kid against the older veteran would be fun. Both players show emotion, and Filler ain't no numptie. ;)
 
jay helfert said:
Everyone knows how much I like my good friend Dennis Orcollo. I think he is a great pool player with tons of heart. I've seen him make more comebacks to win matches than anyone else. Dennis never gives up and actually expects to win, no matter what the score. He is a great shot maker and brilliant tactician on the table, and he fears no competitor. In fact he relishes a match with a strong opponent. All that said, I would rank him second to Parica at 9-Ball or Ten Ball. Dennis might miss a shot once every hour or so. Parica might not miss anything for hours! Really!!
Click to expand...
One of my favorite photos, Jay, of Jose and Dennis in 2006. Parica was still quite active in pool but starting to settle down, and Dennis was hitting the ground running in USA.

Jose_Parica_and_Dennis_Orcullo-1-.jpg
 
9andout said:
I hate how he beats up on the USA but I LOVE his game! Fast and loose!
There's been a lot of talk over the years about how to "save / bring back" pool.
If it was back on TV, with shot clocks and his style of play, I believe it would draw viewers big time.
His comeback against Ruiz was awesome!
...
I'd put Shane, and Shaw in there too of course, but Filler............damn!
Earl must love him!😉
Click to expand...

IMO 9 ball and 10 ball are not compelling on TV. Nor is 8 ball or one pocket. To be honest for it to be popular on TV it would need to be a different game, maybe one that does not even exist right now. There is a reason Snooker is so popular on TV. It is easy to follow, frames are very varied and interesting. There are offensive showcases, defensive battles, steals and snooker has situations that come up that are truly unique
 
sjm said:
As you don't see matters like what constitutes the GOAT or what skill means in pool as matters of opinion, I'd rather not pursue this. You are a fine poster on this forum, and I'll save my energies for our next online encounter. Wishing you well until then.
Click to expand...
I think there is lots of room for debate on what constitutes GOAT, primarily on all the factors after that which has to be primary, but by definition you cannot be the greatest at a certain endeavor if somebody else is clearly better at that endeavor (although you might be something else of note like having the most accomplishments or having been the most dominant of an era etc). This is not an opinion at all but a fact, and a quite clear and self evident one at that (and one which you never attempted to dispute in any way even when asked to). This is the point that you continually avoided having to address for what has all appearances of being so that you would not have to put at risk a view that you have some emotional attachment to. Perhaps it was just that you never really understood what i was trying to say, but it really is as straight forward and simple as the second half of that first sentence. Also wishing you well, always.
 
johnnysd said:
IMO 9 ball and 10 ball are not compelling on TV. Nor is 8 ball or one pocket. To be honest for it to be popular on TV it would need to be a different game, maybe one that does not even exist right now. There is a reason Snooker is so popular on TV. It is easy to follow, frames are very varied and interesting. There are offensive showcases, defensive battles, steals and snooker has situations that come up that are truly unique
Click to expand...
Pool sucks on TV. If you don’t play pool-there’s nothing to watch.

Snooker is a running score based game like basketball.

Simple as that.

And a million more threads to come on this topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top