Legends - Yesterday vs Today

TheCutShot

TheCutShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just for fun, If the Legends of Yesterday like Willie Mosconi & Irving Crane were alive today and in their pool playing prime, how do you think they would fare against today's top players?

Can you imagine Willie Mosconi vs Efren Reyes both in their prime! how much would you pay to see that!!!! Who do you think would win? Playing 9 Ball & 14-1
 
It is hard to compare because the equipment has changed quite a bit. I think the top players, like Mosconi. could play with the greats in any era.
 
TheCutShot said:
Just for fun, If the Legends of Yesterday like Willie Mosconi & Irving Crane were alive today and in their pool playing prime, how do you think they would fare against today's top players?

Can you imagine Willie Mosconi vs Efren Reyes both in their prime! how much would you pay to see that!!!! Who do you think would win? Playing 9 Ball & 14-1
Click to expand...

IF Willy Mosconi were born in 1970 with the same savant-like natural talent he had and grew up in the more modern pool world with the modern players and modern equipment he would have been ridiculously dominant in the modern game. Willy Mosconi at 30 years old or so in that circumstance would spot the world.

IF you take Willy Mosconi of old and time warp him into the modern era without the benefits of coming up through the modern game, playing on the modern equipment, and playing against the modern style of player he would have a far tougher time winning against a top tier pro. He would still be a threat from pure potting and shape play abilities but he would be at a huge disadvantage in the kicking, safety play, jump shots, ect... and other aspects of the game that have had some very huge changes since Mosconi's time. Think Steve Davis or Jimmy White in their occasional forays into 9-ball pool. They could compete on a close to even level with top tier 9-ball players in world championships, but their games clearly had gaps.

The sad thing is Mosconi was a professional pool player in the truest sense of the word, he played the game to make a living. In todays pool world Mosconi would probably be a lot like Mike Sigel, a ridiculously talented player who simply quits playing pro pool because there is not enough money in it.
 
How about this...
What if Efren was in Willie's time with those huge pockets and older equipment....
Perhaps the legend of Mosconi would have never been.?
 
Taking the equipment aspect out of the equation I believe that neither group would have an advantage.
Pool play does not require a participant to run fast, or jump high in the air, nor does it require an extraordinarily high intellect. You don't necessarily have to eat right, or be physically fit.
In the end it would be who was having the better day. :smile:
 
In my opinion, forget the equipment and all the other stuff. Talent is talent and I feel that the top five players of the Mosconi era would crush the top five of today's era players. Any five on five.
The Mosconi era players advanced pool so much it's unreal. Sadly, only a few rare video's are available
of players exist and usually are of the twilight of their abilities. I don't think we could fully understand the
what those Mosconi era players were like in their prime.
When I think of an all time top five pool player team, not one come from our modern erea.

In my opinion, the modern era top five has Sigel, Varner, Rempe Strickland and Reyes making strong cases for themselves. There is a handful of European players that can be on this list, but, sorry.... I personally don't know much about them, but, throw one or two in the mix with the players I mentioned here and you still can't match any five in the Mosconi erea in my opinion.

Nothing to suggest that the players today are not fantastic !! as they are, Just my opinion as the fact that the Mosconi era were shooting all kinds of championships in front of hundreds of players in the utmost respected time of pool and billiards and not in front of a flea market type atmosphere as shown recently at the 14.1 world championship featuring the " Call that that never was heard around the world ".
Sorry to bring up the last sentence as I am going to get slayed. I am not trying to change the subject, just trying to give my opinion on this thread.

I luckily was able to see and meet and watch both Willie Mosconi & Irving Crane in person before their passing. Both at a very advanced age. Boys and Girls, these two men were still amazing !!!! I would still have bet with them against any player in the arena. So Cool, So Very Very Cool.
 
Dimeball said:
How about this...
What if Efren was in Willie's time with those huge pockets and older equipment....
Perhaps the legend of Mosconi would have never been.?
Click to expand...

Mosconi's claim to fame was 14.1. (although he played 9 ball at an unbelievable level also, just didn't like the game). So, for Efren to go back in time, Efren would have to be great at 14.1 also.

Today, when the top 14.1 players are named, Efren isn't among them. That being the case, what makes you think he would be equal to the best ever when he isn't even mentioned among the best today?
 
Comparing Players from another Era

To say that equipment or generational changes doe not matter in sports when comparing players 60 years or more apart is just insane--look at Babe Ruth's swing- he ran up out of the batter's box half the time- no way does he get around on the average 94 MPH pitch today with that batting style. Just the same- look at older Brunswick tables - the pockets were absolute buckets with very short shelve distance from pocket opening to slate edge- today's Diamond pro cut pockets together with the cloth speed imparted by modern pro cloth and aramith balls requires a COMPLETELY different stroke and accuracy ability than the "GOLDEN ERA" of pool.

I firmly believe that you cannot compare Mosconi or Crane to what we see today- that is not to diminish their abilities and accomplishments- but to speculate on how well they would stack up makes no sense with the game being so changed by the equipment today.
Case in point- Oliver Ortmann went undefeated to win the 14.1 US OPEN in 1989 and in my opinion this was a "changing of the guard" event in pool where Oliver demonstrated "modern era" dominance over Mizerak and others by playing 14.1 in a way that was - to date - unconventional from a U.S. standard - he was clearly playing a new game designed for faster cloth and different results on the table that even DiLiberto, as commentator admitted- "I have no idea what this guy will do next on the table"-- you can hear this on the old Accustat tapes from that US Open event in Chicago.
 
Neil said:
Mosconi's claim to fame was 14.1. (although he played 9 ball at an unbelievable level also, just didn't like the game). So, for Efren to go back in time, Efren would have to be great at 14.1 also.

Today, when the top 14.1 players are named, Efren isn't among them. That being the case, what makes you think he would be equal to the best ever when he isn't even mentioned among the best today?
Click to expand...

If Efren had played a lot of 14.1, I have no doubt he would have been one of the best at it.

I wonder how many 14.1 events Efren has entered. In his first 14.1 event, the 1995 Maine Event promoted by Grady Mathews, Efren finished 1st. In the 2000 US Open 14.1 Championship (won by Souquet), he finished 3rd. In the 2012 World 14.1 Tournament (won by Schmidt), he finished 2nd.

Has he even entered any other 14.1 events?

Here's a snippet of Efren playing in that Maine Event. The comments by Billy I. and Danny D. over the last 3 minutes are relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqkfMeut_QY
 
mikemosconi said:
To say that equipment or generational changes doe not matter in sports when comparing players 60 years or more apart is just insane--look at Babe Ruth's swing- he ran up out of the batter's box half the time- no way does he get around on the average 94 MPH pitch today with that batting style. Just the same- look at older Brunswick tables - the pockets were absolute buckets with very short shelve distance from pocket opening to slate edge- today's Diamond pro cut pockets together with the cloth speed imparted by modern pro cloth and aramith balls requires a COMPLETELY different stroke and accuracy ability than the "GOLDEN ERA" of pool.

I firmly believe that you cannot compare Mosconi or Crane to what we see today- that is not to diminish their abilities and accomplishments- but to speculate on how well they would stack up makes no sense with the game being so changed by the equipment today.
Case in point- Oliver Ortmann went undefeated to win the 14.1 US OPEN in 1989 and in my opinion this was a "changing of the guard" event in pool where Oliver demonstrated "modern era" dominance over Mizerak and others by playing 14.1 in a way that was - to date - unconventional from a U.S. standard - he was clearly playing a new game designed for faster cloth and different results on the table that even DiLiberto, as commentator admitted- "I have no idea what this guy will do next on the table"-- you can hear this on the old Accustat tapes from that US Open event in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Ortmann didn't go undefeated in that tournament, Mizerak beat him earlier 150-55. The finals saw poor play by both Ortmann and Mizerak. And that tournament was played on Gold Crowns, btw, not Diamonds.
 
Dimeball.........the pockets on those 10' tables the legends played on would stretch the skills of today's best players......they played 14.1 on a 10' tables.....the 9' only came into championship play starting in 1949. Look at Willie's records in US Open Championship play prior to 1949 which was conducted on 10' pool tables, what the Legends used to play on.....14.1 was, and still remains, a much more challenging game when played on a 10 ft table.
 
I'm sorry, all the old greats would lose today. Too much has changed, starting with faster cloth and tighter (or harder, more rattle!) pockets.

Then they wouldn't stand a chance against modern equipment - the spin you can apply nowadays with little effort is just amazing. Full table draws are not uncommon now, LD shafts allow amazing precision while shooting.

Lastly, the changed style is something they cannot readily participate in, good safety play, jump shots.

Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.

He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.

On a crappy bar table? For sure they would play great.

Cheers,
M
 
Last edited:
M.G. said:
I'm sorry, all the old greats would lose today. Too much has changed, starting with faster cloth and tighter (or harder, more rattle!) pockets.

Then they wouldn't stand a chance against modern equipment - the spin you can apply nowadays with little effort is just amazing. Full table draws are not uncommon now, LD shafts allow amazing precision while shooting.

Lastly, the changed style is something they cannot readily participate in, good safety play, jump shots.

Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.

He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.

On a crappy bar table? For sure they would play great.

Cheers,
M
Click to expand...

Surly you jest.
 
M.G. said:
Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.

He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that Mosconi didn't play on today's equipment, I don't think you can say how well he would play on today's equipment. I suspect he wouldn't have any trouble adapting to different equipment at all.

Your argument is like someone watching Efren play only on a bar table with big pockets, and then concluding that Efren couldn't play well on a 9 foot table.
 
M.G. said:
I'm sorry, all the old greats would lose today. Too much has changed, starting with faster cloth and tighter (or harder, more rattle!) pockets.
I'm not old, but I have to say that you sound very ignorant about the players of the past. You DO realize that they were running 300+ balls on 10 footers with slow cloth and tight pockets (4-4.5 inches), right? Just FYI, slow cloth actually makes 14.1 A LOT harder!
Then they wouldn't stand a chance against modern equipment - the spin you can apply nowadays with little effort is just amazing. Full table draws are not uncommon now, LD shafts allow amazing precision while shooting.
What a joke! Mosconi couldn't draw his ball, huh? Watch the 14.1 instructional tape he has. He is like 800 years old there. He's not babying any balls! Even after suffereing from a stroke and being as old as Metuselah! Watch the touch he has on that, new, slick cloth, even at an advanced age.
Lastly, the changed style is something they cannot readily participate in, good safety play, jump shots.
Well, that is new, granted. Efren has done well without jumping. I've seen him jump in a tournament 2 times, and I've watched A LOT of videos. Most of these older guys were 3 cushion players as well. They knew those rails at least as well as todays players, maybe better. You know some 3cushion players? Try to 3 foul them some time.
Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.
Jesus Christ! You cannot be serious! Didn't play exact!!!!!?:lol: The guy was a magician with the Cueball! He ran hundreds every day! His high run on the 10 footer was well over 300 balls!
He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.
You are either a troll or the most ignorant person in pool history. NOT a machine in exection?? He ran 5 2 6 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! flipping balls and way over 300 on a 10 footer. Not exactly an APA 5! He allegedly ran 22 racks of 9 ball as well, in case you care about that idiotic game.
On a crappy bar table? For sure they would play great.

Cheers,
M
Click to expand...

I'm not a believing person, but if I was I'd pray for some strength right now. I'm sure it would be way too much to ask for you to actually look up Mosconi and the table specs prior to 1950. Instead, I'm going to ask you do do something different. Find a ratty snooker club table, with really heavy cloth. Then, starting with a breakshot of your choosing (called breakshot like straightpool) see how many reds you can run, straight pool style. That's the closest approximation I can think of to a 10 foot, with heavy cloth and tight pockets (of course I know it will be 12 foot and the pockets will be different). What I want you to see from that is how table size and cloth speed, makes straight pool A LOT tougher! After you've tried that for a while, maybe you'll appreciate more the skills of the people prior to the 50's, several of which ran 300 on 10 footers. At the very least, you will understand what slow cloth does to a straight pool rack. You can't just sneeze on the balls and have them spring apart, like on Simonis.
 
Last edited:
I've seen most of the great players of the last 50 years or so.
I played Mosconi an exhibition match.
I saw close up in person Crane run 141 balls
A Willie Mosconi that grew up playing on modern equipment with the same dedication to the game would dominate todays players.
Nobody handled the cue ball any better or had a more ferocious killer instinct to win.

And for those of you that never played on the old equipment let me tell you they were tougher than today.

I learned to play on slow cloth with composition balls. Those balls did not break open like modern balls, you had to slam the break shot in to bust them open.
And a good force follow stroke was a necessity.
 
M.G. said:
I'm sorry, all the old greats would lose today. Too much has changed, starting with faster cloth and tighter (or harder, more rattle!) pockets.

Then they wouldn't stand a chance against modern equipment - the spin you can apply nowadays with little effort is just amazing. Full table draws are not uncommon now, LD shafts allow amazing precision while shooting.

Lastly, the changed style is something they cannot readily participate in, good safety play, jump shots.

Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.

He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.

On a crappy bar table? For sure they would play great.

Cheers,
M
Click to expand...

I'm going to be kind.
This post shows your lack of knowledge of the game and it's history.
 
mikemosconi said:
To say that equipment or generational changes doe not matter in sports when comparing players 60 years or more apart is just insane--look at Babe Ruth's swing- he ran up out of the batter's box half the time- no way does he get around on the average 94 MPH pitch today with that batting style. Just the same- look at older Brunswick tables - the pockets were absolute buckets with very short shelve distance from pocket opening to slate edge- today's Diamond pro cut pockets together with the cloth speed imparted by modern pro cloth and aramith balls requires a COMPLETELY different stroke and accuracy ability than the "GOLDEN ERA" of pool.

I firmly believe that you cannot compare Mosconi or Crane to what we see today- that is not to diminish their abilities and accomplishments- but to speculate on how well they would stack up makes no sense with the game being so changed by the equipment today.
Case in point- Oliver Ortmann went undefeated to win the 14.1 US OPEN in 1989 and in my opinion this was a "changing of the guard" event in pool where Oliver demonstrated "modern era" dominance over Mizerak and others by playing 14.1 in a way that was - to date - unconventional from a U.S. standard - he was clearly playing a new game designed for faster cloth and different results on the table that even DiLiberto, as commentator admitted- "I have no idea what this guy will do next on the table"-- you can hear this on the old Accustat tapes from that US Open event in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Edit: I think maybe I'm thinking about the first match of the two, in which Mizerak won. I became really unsure just now...I'll leave the comment anyway.

You know, when I first watched that old tape, I tought DiLiberto came off as an arrogant jerk. Then when I recently rewatched it, I found myself agreeing with him a lot. Both Ortman and Mizerak are playing terribly (by their own standard) and their patterns are extremely bad. I can only guess that they both somehow choked in the finals, because this was nothing like how straightpool is supposed to be played, and their performances show it.

But I agree with you. The equipment has changed the game, IMO for the worse, especially 14.1! In that game Ortman is just relying on shotmaking, planlessly going through the racks and improvising at the last moment. Mizerak apparently is trying to copy his style. They both play way below their respective pars here.
On todays equiment, having proper angles is less critical than on slower equipment, while shotmaking remains important. You don't have to play that way, even if the equipment allows it, but on the older style, there was no way to get away with it! Ortman has always been a supreme shotmaker, but the Miz is getting old on that tape and Ortman is young. The Miz definitely should have kept his own style, instead to trying to copy a style of game unsuitable for everyone but Ortman himself.

The "changing of the guard" was basically the 14.1 generation aging, dying off or retiring, and nobody bothering to learn the game properly, because there at most is one tournament a year. Combine this with faster cloth and you get the new style of straightpool. Basically it's something different to do while waiting for the next 10 ball tournament . I think Hohman and Engert have revived the proper straight pool playing, so there is hope. I do however, think that there should be a return to the 10 foot, slow table, if we truely are to see 14.1 the way it was meant to be played. Not as a timekiller in a 9 ball tournament.
 
Last edited:
M.G. said:
I'm sorry, all the old greats would lose today. Too much has changed, starting with faster cloth and tighter (or harder, more rattle!) pockets.

Then they wouldn't stand a chance against modern equipment - the spin you can apply nowadays with little effort is just amazing. Full table draws are not uncommon now, LD shafts allow amazing precision while shooting.

Lastly, the changed style is something they cannot readily participate in, good safety play, jump shots.

Also, Mosconi didn't play exact really. He didn't use contact of his chin to the cue. He almost shot from the hip.

He doesn't stand a chance against a van Boening, a van den Berg or Feijen, even a younger Ouschan. They are machines in execution. Mosconi was not.

On a crappy bar table? For sure they would play great.

Cheers,
M
Click to expand...


OK, you got me.

For several years, long after his prime (and a stroke), Mosconi drove, criss-crossing across the country, to stop at rooms, sometimes bowling alleys with pool rooms in the back, to put on an exhibition. Every day, sometimes twice a day, for 300 days of the year.

He'd walk in, set up a 14.1 side of the rack break shot, run two racks, sit down and then say, "I'm ready.

Often, if he lost the lag, he'd break the rack wide open with the corner ball bank, or the head ball to the side pocket shot. Then he'd run 100. IF Mosconi missed and his opponent got to the table, when his opponent inevitably missed, at his next inning and he had run, say 30 or 40 balls, Mosconi would turn to the crowd and ask, "Would you like to see a 100 ball run?" And then do to and complete the 100 ball run.

Different rooms, different tables, then on to the next stop. No current player could do that.

Lou Figueroa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top