Let's talk Fargo

[ShootingArts]

Oddly enough with these scores, none of these guys are monsters. Bob's comment about any of the top sixteen can win makes my point. These guys are the field now. When you have a monster player, once in awhile he has something to take him off his stride and somebody else sneaks in. When you have sixteen guys or more that can win you can forget winning by a fluke, you are gonna have to earn it.

As great as these guys shoot there isn't a Willie Mosconi or Efren among them. If there was he would lead the field by a significant number and win far more than any indication he should. While the raw numbers might not indicate it, Efren's run through the Derby City one pocket fields remains one of the most amazing runs in sports. Considering that you have to beat a huge field in your bracket, then get past the luck of the draw to even get to play in the finals, it is amazing!

Opinion of course but we don't have sixteen or twenty or more Efren's out there, we don't have even one. This parity is great in many respects but somewhere out there is another true monster, maybe just picking up a cue for the first time. He will dominate even these tough fields.

Hu

 

[jokrswylde]

Oddly enough with these scores, none of these guys are monsters. Bob's comment about any of the top sixteen can win makes my point. These guys are the field now. When you have a monster player, once in awhile he has something to take him off his stride and somebody else sneaks in. When you have sixteen guys or more that can win you can forget winning by a fluke, you are gonna have to earn it.

As great as these guys shoot there isn't a Willie Mosconi or Efren among them. If there was he would lead the field by a significant number and win far more than any indication he should. While the raw numbers might not indicate it, Efren's run through the Derby City one pocket fields remains one of the most amazing runs in sports. Considering that you have to beat a huge field in your bracket, then get past the luck of the draw to even get to play in the finals, it is amazing!

Opinion of course but we don't have sixteen or twenty or more Efren's out there, we don't have even one. This parity is great in many respects but somewhere out there is another true monster, maybe just picking up a cue for the first time. He will dominate even these tough fields.

Hu

Good post. Yes look at golf since Tigers downfall. Great, great players, but it seems like it is a different winner each major. Sure Rory, or spieth, or Justin Thomas might get hot and win a few tourneys in a season, but nothing like Tiger. For well over a decade, he was the favorite in any tourney he entered...not one of the favorites, THE favorite.

As dominate as fsr was last year, or filler was 3 years ago, these players are all so close that I don't see anybody stringing multiple years together like the one FSR just had.

 

[sjm]

Good post. Yes look at golf since Tigers downfall. Great, great players, but it seems like it is a different winner each major. Sure Rory, or spieth, or Justin Thomas might get hot and win a few tourneys in a season, but nothing like Tiger. For well over a decade, he was the favorite in any tourney he entered...not one of the favorites, THE favorite.

As dominate as fsr was last year, or filler was 3 years ago, these players are all so close that I don't see anybody stringing multiple years together like the one FSR just had.

Agree with the spirit of this post. We may never see another Efren if we define him relative to the fields he faced. That said, the level of play is rising in every discipline, and the cueists are better than the last generation of cueists, so the fact that one of them won't dominate his peers doesn't mean he doesn't play at a level never seen until the current generation of players arrived.

The best of this generation have already surpassed the level of play of the last, and I feel sure that the next generation of players will surpass the current one.

Still, measuring each player against the competition they faced in their prime is ultimately fair, so I know where you are coming from.

 

[jason]

Oddly enough with these scores, none of these guys are monsters. Bob's comment about any of the top sixteen can win makes my point. These guys are the field now. When you have a monster player, once in awhile he has something to take him off his stride and somebody else sneaks in. When you have sixteen guys or more that can win you can forget winning by a fluke, you are gonna have to earn it.

As great as these guys shoot there isn't a Willie Mosconi or Efren among them. If there was he would lead the field by a significant number and win far more than any indication he should. While the raw numbers might not indicate it, Efren's run through the Derby City one pocket fields remains one of the most amazing runs in sports. Considering that you have to beat a huge field in your bracket, then get past the luck of the draw to even get to play in the finals, it is amazing!

Opinion of course but we don't have sixteen or twenty or more Efren's out there, we don't have even one. This parity is great in many respects but somewhere out there is another true monster, maybe just picking up a cue for the first time. He will dominate even these tough fields.

Hu

I have to agree with STU, I think the level has risen tremendously and they are all monsters. As I said in another post, the equipment and knowledge are better than it has ever been. Players shoot the lights out today, there are just more of them. I like to use this as an example: Evel Knievel sucked compared to the daredevils today. They have it literally down to a science. Pool isn't far off.

 

[ShootingArts]

I have to agree with STU, I think the level has risen tremendously and they are all monsters. As I said in another post, the equipment and knowledge are better than it has ever been. Players shoot the lights out today, there are just more of them. I like to use this as an example: Evel Knievel sucked compared to the daredevils today. They have it literally down to a science. Pool isn't far off.

Monsters compared to yesterdays players granted, yet none of them is a monster of today. Can you picture any of the athletes of the ancient olympics even qualifying today? Maybe at a few obscure activities but those that require athletic ability, their times and distances aren't even good enough to qualify for a major high school event I suspect.

The fargo ratings reveal a simple truth, not one of these guys stands out from the crowd and a few major wins would turn the top sixteen ratings upside down.

I don't think we are any of us are in any disagreement other than how we define "monster". None of these guys stand out from the competition significantly. One reason or another I haven't watched many pool matches lately, last few years. One I did watch indicated the players have moved to a playing style I have advocated for decades. Among other things it minimizes risks.

Changes in equipment, changes in playing style, they have certainly raised the bar in pool. That is my point though, the entire bar has been raised. It is impossible to guess which of these guys we will still be talking about ten years from now, if any. One definition of a monster, they have to dominate their competition.

Willie Mosconi, Efren Reyes, they made me redefine what was possible in pool. There were a lot of pool players in between, a lot since then. None have made me redefine what is possible. For me to call someone a monster they are going to have to either stand out head and shoulders above their competition or make me redefine what is possible. With respect to all of them, these guys aren't above the bar, they are the bar.

Hu

 

[jokrswylde]

Monsters compared to yesterdays players granted, yet none of them is a monster of today. Can you picture any of the athletes of the ancient olympics even qualifying today? Maybe at a few obscure activities but those that require athletic ability, their times and distances aren't even good enough to qualify for a major high school event I suspect.

The fargo ratings reveal a simple truth, not one of these guys stands out from the crowd and a few major wins would turn the top sixteen ratings upside down.

I don't think we are any of us are in any disagreement other than how we define "monster". None of these guys stand out from the competition significantly. One reason or another I haven't watched many pool matches lately, last few years. One I did watch indicated the players have moved to a playing style I have advocated for decades. Among other things it minimizes risks.

Changes in equipment, changes in playing style, they have certainly raised the bar in pool. That is my point though, the entire bar has been raised. It is impossible to guess which of these guys we will still be talking about ten years from now, if any. One definition of a monster, they have to dominate their competition.

Willie Mosconi, Efren Reyes, they made me redefine what was possible in pool. There were a lot of pool players in between, a lot since then. None have made me redefine what is possible. For me to call someone a monster they are going to have to either stand out head and shoulders above their competition or make me redefine what is possible. With respect to all of them, these guys aren't above the bar, they are the bar.

Hu

that's what I was attempting to convey with my Tiger analogy...you were much more eloquent, I think. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[ShootingArts]

that's what I was attempting to convey with my Tiger analogy...you were much more eloquent, I think. I agree wholeheartedly.

My lives before retirement caused me to have to lock down every detail and leave no room for loopholes, something that gets harder the more you write. I used to write two or three paragraph contracts too, the kind lawyers hate! Not much to pick apart in short writings. I wish I could get back to a more concise style like yours. Could be worse, simple proposals to NASA ran over sixty pages!

Hu

 

[sjm]

Monsters compared to yesterdays players granted, yet none of them is a monster of today. Can you picture any of the athletes of the ancient olympics even qualifying today? Maybe at a few obscure activities but those that require athletic ability, their times and distances aren't even good enough to qualify for a major high school event I suspect.

The fargo ratings reveal a simple truth, not one of these guys stands out from the crowd and a few major wins would turn the top sixteen ratings upside down.

I don't think we are any of us are in any disagreement other than how we define "monster". None of these guys stand out from the competition significantly. One reason or another I haven't watched many pool matches lately, last few years. One I did watch indicated the players have moved to a playing style I have advocated for decades. Among other things it minimizes risks.

Changes in equipment, changes in playing style, they have certainly raised the bar in pool. That is my point though, the entire bar has been raised. It is impossible to guess which of these guys we will still be talking about ten years from now, if any. One definition of a monster, they have to dominate their competition.

Willie Mosconi, Efren Reyes, they made me redefine what was possible in pool. There were a lot of pool players in between, a lot since then. None have made me redefine what is possible. For me to call someone a monster they are going to have to either stand out head and shoulders above their competition or make me redefine what is possible. With respect to all of them, these guys aren't above the bar, they are the bar.

Hu

Very tricky business here, my friend. One point on which I'm torn is that when you break great pool into its two base components, conceptualization and execution, I find myself much more aligned with your views.

The current generation of players has raised the bar quite a bit in the area of execution of shots, but it would be hard to argue that they have raised the bar much in shot conceptualization. In that area, nobody has equaled Efren, and only Alex, Dennis and Varner have even come close. To be fair, Josh Filler rarely gets credit for the super-creative play he often produces and Fedor Gorst's conceptualization skills have started to take off in the last three years, but neither seems to have Efren's level of creativity at this point. Then again, it's not altogether impossible that one or both will get there.

Yes, in terms of shot execution, we've never seen the game of pool played at the current level before, but nobody today plays with the imagination with which Efren was associated.

 

[dquarasr]

Yes, in terms of shot execution, we've never seen the game of pool played at the current level before, but nobody today plays with the imagination with which Efren was associated.

Do you think it's possible that Efren is so creative because he put so much effort in multiple games? In particular, I would imagine strategy and patience come from 1p, and sheer outlandish cue ball control, seeing what is possible, comes from 3c.

Sorta like how I'm sure drivers like AJ Foyt, Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney, and other greats (Scott Pruett, Dale Earnhardt, I'm sure I'm missing tons of other examples) learned things from the various forms of motorsports they could apply to other forms of racing (dirt track ovals, pavement ovals, small tracks, superspeedways, road racing, single seaters, open wheelers, prototypes, sedans, aero, etc.)

 

[sjm]

Do you think it's possible that Efren is so creative because he put so much effort in multiple games? In particular, I would imagine strategy and patience come from 1p, and sheer outlandish cue ball control, seeing what is possible, comes from 3c.

Sorta like how I'm sure drivers like AJ Foyt, Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney, and other greats (Scott Pruett, Dale Earnhardt, I'm sure I'm missing tons of other examples) learned things from the various forms of motorsports they could apply to other forms of racing (dirt track ovals, pavement ovals, small tracks, superspeedways, road racing, single seaters, open wheelers, prototypes, sedans, aero, etc.)

Certainly, that's a big factor. Then again, he's not the first and Nick Varner, arguably, had a little more range. Nick was a maestro at each of straight pool, nine ball, banks, one pocket and eight ball. Nick is, in my view, America's greatest ever decision maker at the pool table and is our most creative player. Much like 3cushion, both bank pool and one pocket will tend to refine one's angle management skills, and straight pool and one pocket tend to refine one's touch and finesse.

So, yes, Efren's multidisciplinary track record in cue sports contributed greatly to his creativity, but quite a few have and are taking the same route, which is why I think we'll see another Efren down the road at some point.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Do you think it's possible that Efren is so creative because he put so much effort in multiple games? In particular, I would imagine strategy and patience come from 1p, and sheer outlandish cue ball control, seeing what is possible, comes from 3c. ...

From what I've heard, Efren's experience before he came to the US was in 15-ball rotation and carom billiards. The carom billiards was not primarily 3C from what I've heard. I think he arrived with most of the skills needed to play one pocket.

 

[sjm]

From what I've heard, Efren's experience before he came to the US was in 15-ball rotation and carom billiards. The carom billiards was not primarily 3C from what I've heard. I think he arrived with most of the skills needed to play one pocket.

Yes, but as I've heard it, Freddie Bentivegna and Billy Incardona were instrumental in helping Efren learn the finer points of one pocket.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Some would call that talent for sports. Others say talent doesn't exist.

The latter are just plain wrong. Any sport/game which requires a very precise hit and repeated motions, requires near-perfect muscle memory. Which is something you either have, or don't. It is purely genetic. Can one play at an 800 Fargo level for a short time without that perfect muscle memory? Sure. Will they be able to play an entire tournament at that level? Doubtful.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

From what I've heard, Efren's experience before he came to the US was in 15-ball rotation and carom billiards. The carom billiards was not primarily 3C from what I've heard. I think he arrived with most of the skills needed to play one pocket.

The story is that Efren got good enough in the Phillipines that no one would play him any rotation games, so he picked up straight rail, as that was the only thing he could get action at..

 

[ShootingArts]

All individuals are unique but I agree we will one day see someone similar and even superior to Efren. Debatable if he is the GOAT to date, highly unlikely he is the greatest of all time including the future. However I think there are several things that are rarely given enough credit in Efren's creation.

One thing, Efren was playing to eat and for his family to eat from a very early age. Having been there as far as having to win to eat myself I can assure everyone that hunger is inspirational!

Another thing, the age Efren took up pool. While we can learn at any age, those formative years are the easiest age to learn skills. Perhaps earlier, doubtfully later. We can learn, but it doesn't come nearly as easy. I had to retrain in my mid thirties and again in my forties. My first surprise, I had to relearn how to learn! I was used to learning with little effort in my school years, even after getting in the groove it was considerably harder to learn in middle age than it was as a preteen and teenager.

I think few give Efren's love of chess the credit it deserves for his pool game. I often played chess when I couldn't play pool. When I learned about pattern play I could often see three to five possible patterns, the entire patterns, as I walked up to the pool table. I suspect that Efren sees and analyzes patterns better than I ever did and I think a big part of that is due to his chess play.

I have wondered, as I suspect many have, what Efren's IQ is. It is extremely difficult to rate the IQ of someone with little education so any testing of Efren would be suspect. However, I suspect his raw IQ is very high.

It seems like the factors creating Efren the pool player were almost the perfect storm. I do believe there will be another, different mixes in the soup, but factors that work harmoniously together to create a monster. Pays to remember that Efren didn't hit the shore perfectly well rounded either. I think Buddy Hall took him in his first visit and Mike Sigel put Efren in second place so often Efren was getting called the bridesmaid. Most were paid before coming to the US but everybody pays their dues even the pool monsters and gods.

The story is that Efren got good enough in the Phillipines that no one would play him any rotation games, so he picked up straight rail, as that was the only thing he could get action at..

Same story I heard. However, there is something that people often don't give much credit for helping Efren's pool game, chess. I started playing chess regularly a few years before pool. I was playing 3-5 moves ahead, every piece on the board. From about halfway through the game I could handle seven moves ahead if I was working hard.

Once I understood the concept of pattern play in pool, I started to read patterns as I walked up to the table the first time after the break. I always read multiple patterns without stopping walking. By the time I chalked I might have considered five or more patterns. I was still a few years away from other needed skills but Efren played chess and had the other skills. I think his intense focus on chess had more to do with his success than most realize. Efren obviously had monster pool skills but I think a big part of his game was his ability to see possibilities that others didn't. I also think chess had a significant part in developing that ability.

 

[David in FL]

The latter are just plain wrong. Any sport/game which requires a very precise hit and repeated motions, requires near-perfect muscle memory. Which is something you either have, or don't. It is purely genetic. Can one play at an 800 Fargo level for a short time without that perfect muscle memory? Sure. Will they be able to play an entire tournament at that level? Doubtful.

I absolutely agree.

You hear it all the time on the golf course.

Guys who struggle to break 80 will tell you that if only they could play every day and devote the time to it, they could play on tour.

Most of them could play every day, and would still struggle to break 80. They'd certainly never get to scratch, let alone the otherworldly skill level of even the journeyman tour pro.

Devotion, training, and practice only gets you so far in skill sports. Most of us simply don't have the God-given talent necessary to ever get to that next level, let alone world class…

 

[ShootingArts]

I absolutely agree.

You hear it all the time on the golf course.

Guys who struggle to break 80 will tell you that if only they could play every day and devote the time to it, they could play on tour.

Most of them could play every day, and would still struggle to break 80. They'd certainly never get to scratch, let alone the otherworldly skill level of even the journeyman tour pro.

Devotion, training, and practice only gets you so far in skill sports. Most of us simply don't have the God-given talent necessary to ever get to that next level, let alone world class…

Race horse teams are the worst! There is always one winner and nine horses that would have won except for some little detail that wasn't their fault.

Sometimes I try to think up the most outrageous and silly excuses for losing I can. A favorite for pool was claiming the cue ball was warped. It was always funny to watch people pick up the cue ball and study it when they thought I wasn't paying attention.

Hu

 

[Bob Jewett]

...A favorite for pool was claiming the cue ball was warped. It was always funny to watch people pick up the cue ball and study it when they thought I wasn't paying attention. ...

What exactly were you doing to the cue ball? I used to have a very interesting blue circle cue ball that I could have snuck into games, but that wouldn't have been nice.

 

[ShootingArts]

Sometimes the claim there was something going on with the cue ball was worth more than a gaffy cue ball! After he slipped it to me for fun one day I did often borrow a weighted cue ball from the room owner when I was in my teens. Oddly enough you could play with that ball. While it didn't roll perfect I have played with nonnovelty balls that played worse for standard shots and coming off of one or two rails.

I never understood why but the third rail was the charm! No predicting which direction it was going to curve and it would curve a bunch off of the third rail. I slipped it into games with friends sometimes. Other times we would drop hours of table time just hitting that cue ball trying to figure a way to beat that third rail hoodoo!

Hu