Mosconi's high run and could the previous generation compete today

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And Mosconi or Crane never ran 11 racks of 9 ball (or 15, or whatever the accepted high record is). See how silly that argument sounds?

Here are some facts that you conveniently ignored:

-Nobody plays straight pool any more (and haven't for 40+ years), and the few that do play it very little. Just like Crane and Mosconi played relatively little 9 ball and it wouldn't be fair to say how crappy they were based on the fact that their highest 9 ball runs aren't even a third of what the highest 9 balls runs of today are.

-Ten foots tables are rarely played today and in fact hardly even exist anywhere (and they were even more non-existent until a couple of years ago). Nobody has much playing time on them. But 10 foots were readily available for all of Cranes career and were even the primary table for a big part of it.

-The ten foot tables back in Crane's time had pockets that were significantly easier than the pockets of today. This is due both to the way they were cut, as well as the larger pocket sizes. It is even conceivable that some of the tough Diamond 9 footers of today are more difficult to make runs on than the 10 ft that Crane set his personal best on. And it is absolutely certain that the Diamond 10 footers of today are many orders of magnitude tougher than the ten foots back then.

-You are comparing a few hours of high run attempts at the Derby by today's players (on much tougher equipment no less) against Cranes best run of 70+ years. I don't know of anyone that would argue that it is reasonable to believe that a few hours of effort is going to be enough to surpass the very best that someone else was able to put up in 70 years, even setting aside the fact that they were trying on a much tougher table.

There is no straight pool record that couldn't be beat by one or more of today's players. These records have stood (and will continue to stand) solely because it isn't worth the effort to break them. This is for all practical purposes a dead game and there just isn't much benefit or any real value to be gained to offset the great effort that would be required. If straight pool had remained the dominant game for all of this time, all of these records would have been broken several times over.

And for the record, it is conceivable that Crane and Mosconi could have broken their own records. While they had tons more incentive to break them than today's players do, they likely didn't feel the incentive back then was worth all that much effort either. Their records were set because straight pool is almost solely what they practiced and played, and they practiced and played it a lot. If today's players and players all along were practicing and playing straight pool like that then those records would probably have been broken incidentally (probably several times over) without having even specifically set out to break them.

The best evidence that today's players could break the straight pool records of old are two things:

-In the nearly 100% of the million other skills that can be definitively quantified and measured, humans are better at them now than they were 60-70+ years ago. This is true in sports or any other skill of any kind. There is no reason for pool to be a lone exception.

-Better feats of skill, even in straight pool, have already been done by modern players. Anybody that doesn't think a run of 491 (or any run over 400 for that matter) on a 9 ft is a better feat requiring more skill than a 526 on an 8 ft with buckets is just out of their mind, literally. Like absolutely looney bin crazy. A 309 on a 10 ft with generous pockets similarly probably fails to meet the standard of a 491 or 400+ on a tougher 9 ft.

You need to research a few things.

• Luther Lassiter's record for most consecutive 9 ball racks run

• How long the 2013 DCC 14.1 challenge lasted - hint - it was more than a few hours.

• The conditions and equipment players faced in the 1930's and 1940's when Crane and Mosconi had their 14.1 300 ball runs on a 10 foot table.

• What Crane thought of tables with big pockets.

It is easy to dismiss guys who aren't around to prove otherwise.
 

UPlayLucky

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
btw, Mosconi's famous 526 was on a 8' table with very large pockets. Put up $5million prize and it will be beat, on video, within a year on a similar table.

Did Mosconi get to count his practice runs? I prefer John Schmidt's idea, where a table would be available at a set of tournaments. Players would be charged per attempt. Money collected would increase a fund that would be paid to the whomever breaks the record.
 
Last edited:

elvicash

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Get a big prize it will be broken in a short time if by no one other than the chineese. They got skills for sure and we do not know the depth of the quantity of people playing pool in China/Tiawan. There are also great players in the USA and Eaurope who could do the the same like I said if there was a large prize. I do not expect such a prize to materialize anytime soon.

That being said I think the 526 will be beaten within 10 years on video because the game is being played more and talked about more and while it might not be a a mainstay tourney game with lots of events. I feel many of the elite players are practicing the game and can put out the 100+ run on the current tough equipment. I have the score sheets for DCC many of the elite players are running a 100 once or more in a single ticket at the Derby. Ralph ran 2 great numbers this year in less than a single ticket he did not take all his innings. Players are running balls on tough equipment, not sure they are great 14.1 players the strategy of today's players would probably not hold up to players of old but as far as running balls even on tough equipment today's players are at a high level.

People talk about Mosconi and his greatness. I wish I had seen him play, i did not. I have seen some video but all i have seen is either trick shots or stuff from later in his career no good video of him in his prime in actual competition. Without doubt he was great and his run 526 on whatever table was great actually super awesome. But that was the game of the day and he was actually paid a very good salary to tour around run pool balls, he wanted to run a 100 in each of his appearances and almost invariably he came with the run usually stopping at a 100 and going over to his trick shot show.

Now if we paid Neils or Ralph or John S a similiar wage probably $5k+/week these days I think they would all be able to come with a daily 100 pretty much on command, similiar to Mosconi. Just my opinion I think Mosconi was a very elite player head and shoulders above the players of his day plain to see from his tourney record he crushed players in long events pure dominance. But notice he did not play short sessions the super long format guaranteed the best to win. He was the best of his era. Not all players were allowed to play, It was invitational and short fields. We have the opposite today large field if you got the entry you can play. Rotation games to a short number 7,9, 11 whatever the best is not guaranteed to win any race or any event. Mosconi in a match to 1000 points was pretty safe and he put together a record of dominance. He has the highest recognized run. I know he was the real deal and he would have loved the modern equipment, all of the great players from back in the day would have loved this new equipment. They knew alot and did not share the knowledge like people do today. We have lessons, books, DVD's Youtube etc. People today play great and we have a lot less players there was pool room on every corner back then not so much today.

I think the 526 will be beaten and sooner than most think. Myself I will accept any run on video as being a new record no matter if the BCA or WPA or whoever recognizes it. Video will be proof enough for me.

Personally I wish Marop would get some fresh cloth and get John S to play 5-6 hours a day for 2,3 or 4 months on his Metro 9' table. I think the 526 could potentially be done by John if he decided to focus on it for a couple of months or more. I have seen him rain 100's like water on very tough equipment. Marops table is looser than a DCC Diamond so a lot more true straight pool shots can be played. I think John would very easily be 100+ every day (multiple times every day), 200+ every week and 350+ every month. Just my opinion would not take long for John to run a huge number. He has no reason to dedicate himself to such an effort but if he wanted it he could run that number and more.

If John doesn't do it himself that record will be beaten by someone from Euope or South East Asia and mark my words it will be done on video and sooner than you think and i say that because it is being practiced and videoed more than it being played as competition. More 14.1 is played today than 10 tears ago the game has returned I travel quite a bit and I see it played in pool rooms, practiced and taught. We have alot of that to thank Mr Bob Jewett and Greg Sullivan for the DCC event since then a few other events emulate that event. Bob spent alot of his own money sponsoring the high run event and Greg/Diamond along with others since then has stepped up to sponsor the DCC high run event and playoff tourney. Such an event will be the impetus of the practicing player who will eventually run the big number and hopefully it will be caught on video for all to see. I think it would be great for it to happen at the DCC or perhaps one of the other high run events lending that "official status" to the run. I do not expect that as the equipment at the Derby is usually pretty tough. All of those DCC 100+ runs are truly worthy of respect.

14.1 is the best 1 person practice game. Get a camera, run some balls maybe you can beat the Mosconi record if not I promise you will learn more about the balls than you ever did playing short rack rotation games.
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
btw, Mosconi's famous 526 was on a 8' table with very large pockets. Put up $5million prize and it will be beat, on video, within a year on a similar table.

I think 10K would do it.

I've always thought running 300+ on a 10-footer was much more impressive than running 500+ on an 8-footer.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Mosconi's number

Willie ran 34 consecutive fifteen ball racks without a scratch, without getting an unplayable shot, without a miss. That eight foot table made the first two things tougher, not easier.

I strongly suspect that had everything else been the same except that Willie was shooting on the table used in today's challenge, with today's balls, air conditioning, and all the other amenities, his record run would be much higher than it was on the eight footer.

Hu
 

cleary

Honestly, I'm a liar.
Silver Member
Mosconi didn't get paid any extra to run 526, he just did it on a whim.

He was being paid by Brunswick to do exhibitions and travel around. His game was 14.1, hardly anyone plays that anymore. All I'm saying is put up the cash and you'll see it.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Right. What value could anyone possibly find in being the man who broke the 526.

Lou Figueroa

As several others and myself have already pointed out, not much monetary value, that's for sure. So they could sell a couple of thousand dollars worth of DVD's maybe, big wup. To set the record they would have to buy an 8 ft table (which will probably cost as much as they would make in DVD sales), and have it set up with similar bucket pockets. They would have to buy one or two video cameras if they don't already have them. And you can't just play perfect to get the high run record, you have to get crazy lucky with all the rolls too so they would have to be willing to go into it planning for the possibility that it may take months of 40 hour weeks to break this thing. And they have to make sure they are video taping every second of every moment at the table, making sure every run is caught non stop with no camera interruptions.

Or, instead they could be out playing golf, or doing whatever else they enjoy doing. And when they do want to play or practice, they could have most of their practice time be focused where it might actually help them win what little money there is in pool today. They would want to play on 9 ft tables, probably diamonds, because that will give them the most benefit towards today's tournaments since that is what they are mostly played on. And they would probably want to primarily play 10 ball or 9 ball, because that is what most of the tournaments are in and practicing the same game you are playing in tournaments will obviously be most beneficial for those tournaments. And if they wanted to mix it up, they would probably play one pocket since that is what the second most tournaments are in, and because that is one of the primary games they can find action in. The last thing they would want to be playing or that would give them any benefit is straight pool (extinct game) on an 8 ft table (used in zero tournaments and not enough challenge to do them much good) with bucket pockets (again no tournaments with bucket pockets and not enough challenge to do them much good).

So they could spend all that time, money, and effort trying to break a record in a game that has been dead for decades, to maybe make a couple of grand if they are lucky, or they could go play golf or do something enjoyable or when they are actually playing and practicing they could do it in games and on equipment where it might actually help them in the modern day events as opposed to wasting time playing a game that has been about extinct for decades on a table size that is used in zero tournaments and with bucket pockets that are used in zero tournaments and are a joke and do them little good for sharpening their skills. The decision not to pursue the record isn't rocket science. But if it ever is made worth their while, you will see how quickly it gets broken.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
one could easily argue that the extra size and slow cloth more than makes up for the tighter pockets, fast cloth, and better cushion rubber of the 9' tables of today. Bis size difference between a 10x5 and a 9x4 1/2

There is nobody that is above a C level player that has ever played a game of straight pool and who has an IQ above 30 who could argue that a 526 on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets is as hard of a run as a 491 run made on a 9 ft table.

Anybody that can run a 491 on a 9 ft can certainly get a run of 36 more balls on smaller, easier equipment with bigger pockets. Tougher runs (the 491 being one example) than Mosconi's record have already been made. If they can make a tougher run then they can certainly make an easier run. That today's top players can break the record is not even intelligently debatable (again, they have already made tougher runs!). The only thing that can even be debated is how long it would take.

A weak argument could be made for a 309 on a generous 10 ft table being a better run than a 491 on a 9 ft table, but I think it's still pretty obvious that the 491 is a better run all things considered.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
btw, Mosconi's famous 526 was on a 8' table with very large pockets. Put up $5million prize and it will be beat, on video, within a year on a similar table.

I think you could actually take only 1% of that amount, which would would be $50,000, and offer that amount to each of the first ten players that could break the record on video within a year, and have a legitimate chance that all ten prizes are won. I don't know what the exact odds on that happening would be, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it did happen.

For $50,000 (or maybe even less) and all you have to do is be one of the first ten to do it I think there would be some Filipino's and Taiwanese and Chinese players and a few others that would manage to learn straight pool so fast and well it would make people's head spin, and of course the current crop of top straight pool players were always going to be in the mix. You might even be able to cut the time in half to 6 months, and cut the prize in half to $25,000 to each of the first ten guys to do it and be real surprised at the result.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but Mosconi's 526 for today's top players is a lot like walking from Los Angeles to Maine. You are just about positive you could do it but you know it is going to take a lot of effort and time (and you don't even know just how much time, just that it is going to be a big time investment) and there is no way you are going to do it unless something makes it worthwhile, even though you know that you could actually do it. Being able to say "I walked across the US," as impressive as that claim would be, certainly isn't enough to make it worth it to you. There is going to have to be a good financial payoff to make it worth it.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Mosconi didn't get paid any extra to run 526, he just did it on a whim.

No, he didn't just do it on a whim. It was his all time best ever run in 74 years of playing. You act like he walked in there and said "listen up folks, today I am going to run 526 balls" and then proceeded to do it. That day just happened to be his best run out of 74 years of efforts.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
You need to research a few things.

• Luther Lassiter's record for most consecutive 9 ball racks run

It is immaterial. I think for some reason you chose not to use good comprehension or logic and missed the point. The point is that Mosconi and Crane don't have the record and are not even close. It would be silly to infer that they are inferior to today's players simply because their high 9 ball runs are not even close to that of today's top players when they rarely played the game, just as it is silly to infer (as you did) that today's top players are inferior to Mosconi and Crane because their high straight pool runs are not as high as Mosconi's and Cranes (and that is conveniently forgetting that some have actually made tougher runs) when they likewise rarely play straight pool or on ten foot tables.

• How long the 2013 DCC 14.1 challenge lasted - hint - it was more than a few hours.

Nobody put in more than a few hours trying for a run. But again, you chose not to comprehend and use logic and missed the point. The point was, whatever amount of time the players spent, whether it was hours, days, weeks, or even months, pales in comparison to the +/- 70 years that Mosconi and Crane had in on their records. Those were the best of their 70 years of playing, so in no way would it be reasonable to say today's players are inferior because they couldn't beat it in the few hours that they each put in. If those were Mosconi and Crane's all time best runs in 70 years, I think we can expect it will take someone else more than a few hours or days or a week to beat it.

• The conditions and equipment players faced in the 1930's and 1940's when Crane and Mosconi had their 14.1 300 ball runs on a 10 foot table.

All things considered, today's tables are tougher to make runs on than the tables of that era, and it isn't really even neck and neck. The tougher pocket cuts and sizes of today's tables more than make up for what little advantages (and they are pretty little) they may have in other areas. And Mosconi's record was on a joke of a table in any era.

• What Crane thought of tables with big pockets.

Just because he may have preferred tight pockets for competition or practice doesn't mean that is what his record was on. I'm pretty sure Mosconi didn't prefer 8 ft tables with buckets either. And for that matter, he may have preferred tight pockets all of the time except for when he was trying for his highest run number.

I need to learn how to do those bullet points. I like them.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
It was his longest run in a public exhibition, but it may have been neither his best nor his longest run.

Possible, but it was the highest and best run that he claimed, and as proud as Mosconi was and as much as he wanted to be seen as and known as the best etc, I have to believe that if he had run more than 526 he would said so when telling people what his high run was (and in his book). It also seems as if he would have said something along the lines of "but I have a run of 491 on a 4.5 x 9 which is a much better run than the 526" if he felt he had another run of a lower number that was actually a tougher run.

I've already previously said several times that I think it is feasible that he could have broken his own record had he had the incentive to do so, but when the run we have reasonable proof for and his own claims match up I have to go by that.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Willie ran 34 consecutive fifteen ball racks without a scratch, without getting an unplayable shot, without a miss. That eight foot table made the first two things tougher, not easier.
Everybody I know including me that has played straight pool on an 8 ft and a 9 ft all agree that the 8 ft is overall much easier. John Schmidt says they are not even in the same universe and the 8 ft is shockingly easier. Add bucket pockets onto that and Mosconi had it as good as it gets by many miles.

I strongly suspect that had everything else been the same except that Willie was shooting on the table used in today's challenge, with today's balls, air conditioning, and all the other amenities, his record run would be much higher than it was on the eight footer.
Sir, please put the pipe down and step away from the pipe... :eek: :D Seriously though, you got a hold of some good stuff if you think Mosconi would run more than 526 on the ten foot table at the Derby challenge (or even a 9 ft Diamond for that matter).
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Well, yes and no.
4.5" corner pockets had been in use since at least 1887 or so, from the time of the first professional continuous pool matches, and were still in use well into the 10s, 20s and 30s during Greenleaf's heyday and Mosconi's upbringing.

I do, however, believe that common bar tables, just like today, had lesser tight pockets than pro tournament tables, nonetheless, Brunswick made sure they were standardized for pro tourneys.




In the 1910s and 1920s:

" all games shall be played with 2-5/16 Empire compo-ivory balls, upon a 5x10 Brunswick-Balke-Collender company table, with 4-1/2 inch pocket openings at the corners and 4-3/4 inch pocket openings on the side. Same shall be furnished with 1845 match cushions and Brunswick special imported tournament cloth. "

It seems like if Mosconi or anyone else set a record during a major tourney pre 1949, there's a good chance it was on a 10ft table with 4.5" pockets.

I've played on a couple of the old tables used in tournament play in the ten foot era and they were not that tight.

Here's another thing worth considering. Balls per inning counts rose about 20% once they switched to 9 footers. That corresponded with the change from a race to 125, which was the norm on ten footers, to races to 150.

Comparing the DCC 14.1 challenge of 2013 to that of 2014, it took about 70 to qualify for single elimination in 2013, but this year it took, if memory serves, 108, and the sample size was huge and the players were the same, for the most part, both years. the guys ran almost 60% more on the smaller table with no change in pocket size. Thsi does not correspond to the perceived difficulty difference in my books.

Today's players can definitely break 526,and can also likely beat Cranfield's 768 in practice. Don't sell them short.
 

Masayoshi

Fusenshou no Masa
Silver Member
Today's players may be able to beat Mosconi's record in practice trying multiple times over a long period, but put them in front of an audience, against an opponent in a proper match, with only one try a day, if that, and I doubt the record will be beaten any time soon.

Mosconi is also said to have runs over 600 in practice, but the only one that counts is the one done in an exhibition in an actual match.
 

elvicash

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Willie ran 34 consecutive fifteen ball racks without a scratch, without getting an unplayable shot, without a miss. That eight foot table made the first two things tougher, not easier.

I strongly suspect that had everything else been the same except that Willie was shooting on the table used in today's challenge, with today's balls, air conditioning, and all the other amenities, his record run would be much higher than it was on the eight footer.

Hu

Hu he ran 37.5 racks of 14 balls. I do not know that he had even one rack of 15 balls. There is no real record of what actually occurred in the official 526 run. We do not know if he ever had to make a ball out of a full rack as you would when the 14th ands 15th ball both drop at the end of a rack. We do not know if he called a ball and missed it and it still went perhaps going across the table and then coming back and going into the correct hole, I doubt that happened but if had his run would have been able to be continued. We do not know if he had a perfect of run with mostly stop shots playing from ball to ball with a nudge here or there. I reckon in 37+ racks he had mostly great 14.1 racks the balls were probably opening well and not bunching up.

I personally do not think you are right about the difference in equipment making it easier. The table we use at the DCC 14.1 straight pool challenge have sub 4.5" corners with a fairly deep shelf. I was George Rood's HOF induction ceremony, he later owned the table in his pool room that was used by Mosconi in the 526 run and he said the pockets were very generous.That being said Mosconi still made the balls. Mosconi would have loved the modern equipment perhaps he would have ran a 1,000 on it who will ever know. Mosconi would have been a killer in any generation.
 

naji

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The best evidence of this is what happened when they put today's top players on a 10 foot table at the 2013 Derby City Challenge. Each player gets 16 chances for $100 dollars.

The "old timers" originally played the game on a 10 foot table. I'm not sure what Mosconi's high run on a 10 foot table was but Crane ran 300.

For the week, with the world's top players taking a run at it, only one player got to 100 balls on a 10 foot table and that was snooker player Stuart Pettman with a run of 117.

The world's best couldn't get to half of Crane's high run, in fact only one guy got to 1/3 of Crane's 300.

If you thought Mosconi's 526 on an 8 foot wasn't legitimate because the table was too small, get on a 10 foot and run 300.

IMO you are comparing apples and oranges, unless you can prove that the table Crane or Mosconi played on has same size pockets as today's pockets or cut style? big difference, many pool players weaknesses gets exposed when they are at snooker table due to pocket size and shap, not how big the table is.. in reality 14.1 , 95% of the times uses half of the pool table, any more then player is not playing the game right, or break too hard!
 

leto1776

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is nobody that is above a C level player that has ever played a game of straight pool and who has an IQ above 30 who could argue that a 526 on an 8 ft table with bucket pockets is as hard of a run as a 491 run made on a 9 ft table.

Anybody that can run a 491 on a 9 ft can certainly get a run of 36 more balls on smaller, easier equipment with bigger pockets. Tougher runs (the 491 being one example) than Mosconi's record have already been made. If they can make a tougher run then they can certainly make an easier run. That today's top players can break the record is not even intelligently debatable (again, they have already made tougher runs!). The only thing that can even be debated is how long it would take.

A weak argument could be made for a 309 on a generous 10 ft table being a better run than a 491 on a 9 ft table, but I think it's still pretty obvious that the 491 is a better run all things considered.

Wow, you love trying to belittle people just to prove your point.

Not sure why you're saying the 10ft Crane and Willie ran the 309s on was generous. Evidence on the previous page of this thread would show otherwise.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
people always seem to disagree on how to count!

Hu he ran 37.5 racks of 14 balls. I do not know that he had even one rack of 15 balls. There is no real record of what actually occurred in the official 526 run. We do not know if he ever had to make a ball out of a full rack as you would when the 14th ands 15th ball both drop at the end of a rack. We do not know if he called a ball and missed it and it still went perhaps going across the table and then coming back and going into the correct hole, I doubt that happened but if had his run would have been able to be continued. We do not know if he had a perfect of run with mostly stop shots playing from ball to ball with a nudge here or there. I reckon in 37+ racks he had mostly great 14.1 racks the balls were probably opening well and not bunching up.

I personally do not think you are right about the difference in equipment making it easier. The table we use at the DCC 14.1 straight pool challenge have sub 4.5" corners with a fairly deep shelf. I was George Rood's HOF induction ceremony, he later owned the table in his pool room that was used by Mosconi in the 526 run and he said the pockets were very generous.That being said Mosconi still made the balls. Mosconi would have loved the modern equipment perhaps he would have ran a 1,000 on it who will ever know. Mosconi would have been a killer in any generation.




The fourteen plus one thing leads to confusion. If I count it as fourteen ball racks some people say I am counting wrong, if I count it as fifteen ball racks some people disagree. I won't quibble over 34 or 37 racks though, not that important.

As for those that want to talk about crack pipes or such, I strongly suspect that they have never played under the conditions Mosconi routinely played under. Tables varied widely, all other conditions varied widely. I have played on the old tables, eight footers, nine footers, ten footers, and super eight tables, and played on them without climate control. I have played with clay balls and the older plastic balls. I have played on the directional cloth, enough of a change in itself to cripple one of today's players until they adapted to it.

Unlike people who haven't played under similar conditions to Mosconi, I can compare the two. Today's players are hothouse players, the western Europeans and US players at least. That definitely includes me. It is a whole lot easier to make shots and play in general now. Different world.

Willie Mosconi had to almost daily adapt to widely varying conditions and perform regardless of conditions. Just playing very similar equipment all the time gives today's players an advantage playing on that equipment. The ten foot Diamond still has the same pocket angles, the same cushion rubber and profile, the same quality leveling system as the nine footers. Still has nice lighting and nice climate control. I have played on Diamond seven and nine footers. No real changes to make because the pockets, cloth, and cushions play the same. The ten footer may have tight pockets and the longer distance matters but they are essentially playing under the same conditions as playing the Diamonds they play all the time.

As I have said many times, bring yesterday's players to today, and they would very rapidly be playing in their same position in the pool hierarchy. Bring today's players to the past and most of them would regain the same position they hold today but it would take considerably longer.

There was a hell of a lot more to learn when I started playing pool. A typical set of balls had several balls in it that played substantially different, you had to know those balls. the directional cloth made a ball curve one way up table, another down, and affected cross side shots to a lesser degree. Knowing the effects of lighting was important, some of the gaff tables I played on were gaffy just because of the angle of the lighting. Some gaffy just in the morning or afternoon. Shots could go with a door open that didn't go for the best players of the day with the door closed.

A lot more variables could come into play even fifty years ago and the variables had more effect because they were larger. Anyone who hasn't played under those conditions hasn't a clue just how much different it was.

A final note to an already long post: Still a lot of straight pool fans among the pro's. I'm quite sure some have tried runs on eight footers just to try to prove that if they shot on an eight footer then they could break Willie's record. Notice that none seem to have came forward with big numbers after trying on an eight footer? Most straight pool players dislike playing on an eight footer because of congestion and won't even attempt playing on a seven footer for the same reason.

(elvicash, I quoted you but obviously the first paragraph is the only part that is a direct reply to you.)

Hu
 
Top