Matchrooms Concern
- Thread starter Island Drive
- Start date
Yes, there is much truth in this.
Last edited:
If that's the case, Sigel, Mcready, Varner, Allen, Searcy, I need more intel...
You saw them play live, sjm. I didn't. I can only judge based on the limited amount of video available online. As such my perceptions are far more limited, though you could also be cursed with a perspective laced with nostalgia and a (justifiable) reverence for the past.
You are, of course, correct that the talent pool was deeper than ever "in those years." Certainly compared to now.
I still think the top 10 U.S. players in this era could compete with the top 10 players of the 1990s, though I would give a clear edge to the older generation. There is no quartet now to match Sigel, Strickland, Varner and Archer, among one group of four you could pick from back then.
It's not contest if we are talking top 20 or 30 then vs now. The U.S. talent pool these days has plenty of 600 to 750 players, but very few true masters of the game.
But was U.S. pool deep? In terms of what? Very subjective to me. Hard to judge by titles of a bygone era when there were lots of tourneys of varying qualities, many of which no longer exist.
I defer to you on this, though. Clearly there has been no other era in the U.S. with that number of great or high-level players.
Having watched hundreds of hours of old vids, I've concluded that today's players are generally technically better. They are better at breaking, safety play and perhaps even kicking - though there seemed to be no ball Grady Matthews couldn't find a way to touch.
The older players were savvier and mentally tougher, it seems. They kept the game even simpler and made, imo, fewer inexplicable decisions. At times, though, some of them seemed a bit sloppy compared to modern players, who seem to agonize over everything. and study the table to death.
Whatever the case, we would all love to see more great American players. I have some hope - there's never been a better time to learn the game with all the info available publicly.
Nice post. Most of this makes perfect sense. The depth of the fields back then was impressive, but they didn't play the kind of pool we see today. If we are talking 9ball, not even Earl, Varner or Sigel.
Players can really only be measured against those of their own era. My point is that the number of American guys that could and often did beat the top few Americans back in the day was much higher then than the number of Americans today that can beat the best American players of this generation (SVB, Woodward, Dechaine, Bergman, et al).
I do not agree with the suggestion that the old schoolers were savvier. Yes, American pool has yet to (and may never) produce a player with more savvy than Varner, but overall, this generation of Americans plays much smarter than those of the 1980s in every game but straight pool.
The point you make about the lack of video is an important one. More than a few of the world beaters of times gone by were never captured on video in their respective primes and it makes them more easily forgotten. That does make things harder to judge for all but the old fogeys like me who got to watch most of them. Another important point, however, is that the lack of video made learning the game harder.
I'd probably pick Matlock over Medina if we are going to include the barbox legends. Tadd was an amazing player but a flash in the pan.
I don't doubt that there are great American players out there. Some of them might be able to win a big tournament if all the stars are aligned perfectly for them. In some cases, the luck of the draw in the tournament plays a big part.
If we analyse each decade in pool history since the 80s and look at the top 32 players of each decade, then we will see a decrease in the number of American players off these 32.
To a degree, it makes sense, and it's natural as pool grows in other countries. But I think that if you take into consideration the population size of each country, then I think that that number is below natural.
It's not far from now that there won't be any Americans in the top 32 or even the top 100.
Now, the big question is - does anybody in the USA cares about it or doing something about it?
Not doing anything about it, is also OK. Just no reason to blame this or thar promoter as it's not their job.
If we analyse each decade in pool history since the 80s and look at the top 32 players of each decade, then we will see a decrease in the number of American players off these 32.
To a degree, it makes sense, and it's natural as pool grows in other countries. But I think that if you take into consideration the population size of each country, then I think that that number is below natural.
It's not far from now that there won't be any Americans in the top 32 or even the top 100.
Now, the big question is - does anybody in the USA cares about it or doing something about it?
Not doing anything about it, is also OK. Just no reason to blame this or thar promoter as it's not their job.
What's interesting about Danny.
He exclusively played on bar boxes.... some some time in the earlier 80's he switched to the big tables.
There was more money there at that time.
Medina would of been Daves equal if he'd not of switched to 9'.
But..............
Danny has done allot more damage on the national pro tour with all of em, than David ever did.
Efren, Buddy, Sigel you name it, he's beaten em all in match play.
Archer wanted no part of Dino on his home court when he was in his prime.
Do you have a problem with Americans in general?
Why do you continue to focus on American pool in such a negative way? To some it might just be a positive thing that individuals are pointing their focus in another direction.
Not at all.
I would love to see great American players come around and be more dominant in the international arena.
I don't like to see suggestions that this or that promoters are responsible to the state of pool in America, it's not their job.
That's why MR should do 10 25K added events here.
Instead they're giving that $500K added to the US Open 9 Ball.
The pros would of Still come if it was Only $250K added
.
That' just thinking small and local. MR is global.That's why MR should do 10 25K added events here.
Instead they're giving that $500K added to the US Open 9 Ball.
The pros would of Still come if it was Only $250K added
by doing 500K added, those who get into good money, will be able to travel to other international events.
You have local promoters to run small money events.
True, but they still will come.
Not many other $250K added events on the planet.
US Open 2025.
it looks like you can register as a player and get in.
I was looking at the Jewett Thread.
US Open is not $500,000 added, it's $500,000 prize fund, which is roughly $250,000 added.That's why MR should do 10 25K added events here.
Instead they're giving that $500K added to the US Open 9 Ball.
The pros would of Still come if it was Only $250K added
If they fill the US Open field, it is $308k added, but if the field does not fill, Matchroom is stuck for more. Are past champions still comp'ed?
But to Bill's point, I think Matchroom is not interested in running a bunch of minor tournaments or even adding money to someone else's events. The majors they run are to create matches that people want to watch so that Matchroom makes money from the broadcast rights. An event with $12k for first and a bunch of 700-level players doesn't qualify. If the US needs lots of that kind of event, it's up to the US to figure out how to do it. I think we had something like it in the Predator Pro Billiard Series, but it seems to have died from lack of player support.
Thanks for the info, Bob. I mistakenly thought the entry fee to be $1,000 at the US Open.
Agreed that Matchroom has no interest in producing any lesser events.
years back many players hung in the poolroom everyday all day and played and gambled. now you go in and no body stays long or plays hard or gambles. so no reason to get good and over that hump of a top player in your area.
to get a big pool of players so a few become top ones takes a large field of wanna bees that isnt part of the american culture.
they couldn't get good even if they wanted to as few if any good players live nearby to compete with.
you cant get good playing by your self or in leagues where you only play a small number of games with no competition.
no longer can you hit the road and win money and get experience against all sorts of players. which means no incentive.
if the money was big and tv covered it people would work hard to get there. but pool has a small mindset of trying to be affordable. and affordable means cheap. and cheap means little interest.
to get a big pool of players so a few become top ones takes a large field of wanna bees that isnt part of the american culture.
they couldn't get good even if they wanted to as few if any good players live nearby to compete with.
you cant get good playing by your self or in leagues where you only play a small number of games with no competition.
no longer can you hit the road and win money and get experience against all sorts of players. which means no incentive.
if the money was big and tv covered it people would work hard to get there. but pool has a small mindset of trying to be affordable. and affordable means cheap. and cheap means little interest.