Old 9-ball players vs the New

Prediction: This thread will be 5 pages long by noon.

It's silly that some can't have an intelligent debate because they are so one sighted it shadows the facts.

The players of yesteryear played an offensive game on equipment and with rules that required that style. Once the game evolved and the equipment updated, the players realized that to win they had to adopt more tools and ways of shooting. Being all offensive for the most part doesn't work like it used to. The best players have a full arsenal of shots including a variety of safeties, jumps, kicks, etc...

This is in no way a slight towards the old schoolers and I'm not sure why some take it that way EVERY TIME.

Take all other sports and compare: Basketball, Baseball, Football, Golf, Swimming, etc.....The athletes today are much stronger, bigger, and do things better than the athletes that came before them. It's simple evolution. Pool is probably the sport or game that this is seen the least because the disparity in genetics has the least effect on the game but the knowledge gained in 20-30-50 years is definitely part of the evolution process.
 
real bartram said:
so is that why you put down todays players?

i guess your going to say keith can beat the pinyos
lol lol
or ralph souqet
or svb
or johnny archer
or mika
you might noe know but there are tapeswe watch of the old players.
Click to expand...

On more thing, since you want to drag Keith's name in this thread, he has, in fact, beaten each name you listed in tournaments, so there goes your rationalization.

As far as the Filipino players, they're in a whole different category, but they're not unbeatable. I can remember a 9-zip score in the finals at a Joss Tour event versus Ronnie Alcano, a World Pool Championship title-holder. :wink:

There's always a paddle to fit every back side, Chris, if you want to win.
 
JAM said:
Please don't drag Keith's name in this thread. :angry:

I should be able to convey my opinion without having his name brought up.

As far as tapes go, you had to have been there to see them play, which you were not. You are too young. For you to say you are basing your opinion on tapes is quite revealing and, thus, explains why I believe your opinion seems flawed.

There are not many tapes in existence showcasing players of yesteryear, like there are today. You didn't see them run 15 racks in a row with a metal cue on a crappy table, did you?
Click to expand...

run 15 racks with a metal cue?
you bel this stuff you will bel anything.

and todays game you dont run racks you do what it takes to win.
try to play safe and kick safe.
 
real bartram said:
run 15 racks with a metal cue?
you bel this stuff you will bel anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe this stuff because I have seen it with my own eyes.

real bartram said:
and todays game you dont run racks you do what it takes to win. try to play safe and kick safe.
Click to expand...

Now you're talking. :) Two different animals, huh?
 
JAM said:
On more thing, since you want to drag Keith's name in this thread, he has, in fact, beaten each name you listed in tournaments, so there goes your rationalization.

As far as the Filipino players, they're in a whole different category, but they're not unbeatable. I can remember a 9-zip score in the finals at a Joss Tour event versus Ronnie Alcano, a World Pool Championship title-holder. :wink:

There's always a paddle to fit every back side, Chris, if you want to win.
Click to expand...

i thought you would not bring keiths name in this.
to me anyone can win a tourney match.
i have beat some good players in tourneys
would i play them no thanks
 
real bartram said:
i thought you would not bring keiths name in this.
to me anyone can win a tourney match.
i have beat some good players in tourneys
would i play them no thanks
Click to expand...

I was replying to your statement that the players you listed could not be beat. In fact, they were.

You are also comparing those players of today to a man who is in his middle fifties. Whether you like it or not, Chris, they would not have enjoyed playing him when he was in his prime. I don't think the boxers of today would be afraid of George Foreman, being that he's in his fifties, but I don't think they would have liked boxing him when he was in his prime.

Nobody liked pulling his name in a tournament, and when it came to action, they had better bring their A game to the table because they stood the chance of being benched the entire session. Of course, there's no tapes of this for you to see, Chris. You'll just have to take my word on it.
 
JAM said:
I will replying to your statement that the players you listed could not be beat. In fact, they were.

You are also comparing those players of today to a man who is in his middle fifties. Whether you like it or not, Chris, they would not have enjoyed playing him when he was in his prime. Nobody liked pulling his name in a tournament, and when it came to action, they had better bring their A game to the table because they stood the chance of being benched the entire session. Of course, there's no tapes of this for you to see, Chris. You'll just have to take my word on it.
Click to expand...

i never said he was not a GREAT player
i always said he was.
but i always said THE PINYOS WOULD BEAT HIM IN A GAMBLING MATCH.
 
corvette1340 said:
Prediction: This thread will be 5 pages long by noon.

It's silly that some can't have an intelligent debate because they are so one sighted it shadows the facts.

The players of yesteryear played an offensive game on equipment and with rules that required that style. Once the game evolved and the equipment updated, the players realized that to win they had to adopt more tools and ways of shooting. Being all offensive for the most part doesn't work like it used to. The best players have a full arsenal of shots including a variety of safeties, jumps, kicks, etc...

This is in no way a slight towards the old schoolers and I'm not sure why some take it that way EVERY TIME.

Take all other sports and compare: Basketball, Baseball, Football, Golf, Swimming, etc.....The athletes today are much stronger, bigger, and do things better than the athletes that came before them. It's simple evolution. Pool is probably the sport or game that this is seen the least because the disparity in genetics has the least effect on the game but the knowledge gained in 20-30-50 years is definitely part of the evolution process.
Click to expand...

vette have been playing golf?
 
old versus new

Equipment, equipment, equipment.

Cloth, cue differences, specialized jumping and breaking cues, extensions, tips, ferrules and balls and tables have changed the game tremendously.

Those "old" guys( at their peaks) had every bit as good eyesight as today's players. They were just as young (in their hay days) and just as capable with their equipment. It would take the younger generation a long while to master "safety and kick" play on the older slower cloth with the heavier clunkey balls. Pool has changed. That's the point. Are today's golfers better than the older ones??? How about tennis??? How about racecar drivers?? They are all different games that have changed with the times and technology.

A fine example of the pool veterans that are still active is Nick Varner. He grew up using some of the older equipment and even today is a major threat tournament player. On any given day he can best many of the younger "kids" of today. Buddy Hall frightens the younger generation when he shows up. Scotty Townsend is always a major threat. Yes, their age is beginning to show a little, but there are no pro athletes that can consistently win their major competitions until they die, in any sport. Billy Jean King, Jack Nicklaus, Richard Petty, Mario Andretti, AJ Foyt, Henry Aaron, to name a few, were all great, by most peoples standards. They all stepped aside as the younger generation, with their technological advantages, took over. They were our finest athletes of their time.

Their places in the history of sport make them the greatest players of all time. Let's respect them for their accomplishments in their times. The younger generation is developing their greats now.

Let's relish their growing efforts and applaud their victories too.
Tom Gedris, Triple Cross Cues
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
In 3 cushion back in the day, Cuelemans averaged only 1.2 - 1.5 per inning. Today's top 3-cushion players would average 1.8 - 2.0. What holds true in 3-cushion I think is also true in pool.
 
RiverCity said:
If you look at several players from the 70s and 80s, most of the top guys could definitely hang with the top guys today if you are comparing prime to prime. Mike Sigel, Buddy Hall, Nick Varner, Jim Rempe. There were several guys who played from that era into the simonis, tighter pocket days of the 90s and beyond.
As far as the cloth goes, thats not that much of an adjustment going from slow to fast, because their stroke is pure. Fast to slow is the bigger adjustment because of the extra ooomph required to move the white ball. And for the top guys from pretty much any era..... the center of the pocket is the center of the pocket.
Chuck
Click to expand...

That is just like saying pool is pool and today"s equipment makes no difference when in fact it makes a huge difference. As Island Drive just stated, today's equipment has slown aggressive play drasticly. They just don't get the momentum going as they used to and of course the alternate
break has a lot to do with that.
As far as slow to fast being easier? I think it far the other way. Sower cloth is far more predictable and far easier to learn and control. IMO!
 
I fall into the camp that believes great players would be great in any era

A lot of the talk is how once great players would play today but I've played with clay balls where every ball was different and you had to learn how each ball rolled. I've played with cloth so deep that you had to account for the ball curving at the end of it's path due to the weave of the cloth. Of course these tables and balls required a ton of stroke, particularly the 5x10's, and the cues would fill your hand, not the little wands used today.

We talk about the problems that the old players would face today but the same is true of today's players if they went back to that day. They would be crushed when they first tried to play. However they would very soon adapt and be in pretty much the same place in the pecking order in that day as they are in today's pecking order.

The athletes of today are superior to the athletes of yesteryear as a whole due to advances in nutrition, medicine, and sports conditioning. However few if any of the advances have any substantial effect on pool play. Joe Davis was using clay balls and was hearing reports of huge runs people were making across the water with the new plastic balls. He eventually swapped to the plastic balls and made some huge runs of his own. It wasn't the players that were superior, it was the equipment.

All of our equipment is superior from cue tips to cushion rubber. Our style of play reflects this. We hit every ball ad cushion expecting it to respond the same as the other balls and cushions. Think what it was like when you had to take into account which ball you were hitting, which cushion(s) you were hitting, and which way you were going on the table if you were banking or shooting slowly you had to consider which way the weave was going to make the ball curve. An old pool hall kept the balls for each of it's five by ten tables separate. I still remember that the four and the seven on my favorite table would curve badly if not hit firmly into the pocket so you had to play shape to drive them into a nearby pocket.

Today's players have far better equipment. They may be at a slight physical advantage. They may have a touch more intelligence on average although I grow skeptical if the human race as a whole is growing more intelligent. The top players from earlier eras were far more knowledgeable and more adaptable. They had to be to excel in the conditions they played in. Climate control alone has made a huge difference in play.

My feeling is that the greats of today and of yesteryear would have been great whenever they were born.

Hu
 
I changed my mind. Both old and new top players are/were awsome. Johnnyt
 
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
A lot of the talk is how once great players would play today but I've played with clay balls where every ball was different and you had to learn how each ball rolled. I've played with cloth so deep that you had to account for the ball curving at the end of it's path due to the weave of the cloth. Of course these tables and balls required a ton of stroke, particularly the 5x10's, and the cues would fill your hand, not the little wands used today.

We talk about the problems that the old players would face today but the same is true of today's players if they went back to that day. They would be crushed when they first tried to play. However they would very soon adapt and be in pretty much the same place in the pecking order in that day as they are in today's pecking order.

The athletes of today are superior to the athletes of yesteryear as a whole due to advances in nutrition, medicine, and sports conditioning. However few if any of the advances have any substantial effect on pool play. Joe Davis was using clay balls and was hearing reports of huge runs people were making across the water with the new plastic balls. He eventually swapped to the plastic balls and made some huge runs of his own. It wasn't the players that were superior, it was the equipment.

All of our equipment is superior from cue tips to cushion rubber. Our style of play reflects this. We hit every ball ad cushion expecting it to respond the same as the other balls and cushions. Think what it was like when you had to take into account which ball you were hitting, which cushion(s) you were hitting, and which way you were going on the table if you were banking or shooting slowly you had to consider which way the weave was going to make the ball curve. An old pool hall kept the balls for each of it's five by ten tables separate. I still remember that the four and the seven on my favorite table would curve badly if not hit firmly into the pocket so you had to play shape to drive them into a nearby pocket.

Today's players have far better equipment. They may be at a slight physical advantage. They may have a touch more intelligence on average although I grow skeptical if the human race as a whole is growing more intelligent. The top players from earlier eras were far more knowledgeable and more adaptable. They had to be to excel in the conditions they played in. Climate control alone has made a huge difference in play.

My feeling is that the greats of today and of yesteryear would have been great whenever they were born.

Hu
Click to expand...

An exceptionally good post. One that nicely "cuts the baby in half" and gives kudos to both sides.

I agree with this thinking also.

If you could somehow take Luther Lassiter, Earl Strickland, Mike Sigel, Buddy Hall, Harold Worst, Nick Varner, Allen Hopkins, Efren Reyes, Ronnie Allen and Eddie Taylor and somehow have them in their prime playing today, they would excel today just like they did back when.

Just for an example, in 141., how many think that Ralph Greenleaf, Frank Taberski, Irving Crane, Joe Balsis, Bennie Allen, Erwin Rudolph, Andrew Ponzi, etc would not also be dominating if they played 14.1 in the modern era?

And the other side of the coin, if you could take Fong Pang Chao, Souquet, Chia-Ching Wu, Alex, Ching Shun Yang, Dennis Orcollo, Lee Van Corteza, John Schmidt, Shannon Daulton, etc BACK into another era, I would also bet real high that they too would do well in THAT era. Great talent is great talent. Would anybody bet that Ted Williams could not hit todays ML pitchers? Would Jack Nicklaus win on today's PGA tour? I think so.

These super elite players would have been dominant no matter when they played. In equal playing conditions, with the same experience with the same rules or balls or whatever, all conditions being equal, you can pretty much put all the top 50 players of all time in a hat, shake 'em up real good and at the end of the game, you'll find that on any given day, any of them could have won.
 
real bartram said:
very good post

the break safes and kicks today are way more powerfull.

now take those guys from the past put them today diff story cause they would know how to kick break and play safe like todays players.
so yes i think todays players would win if the old guys played like they did.
but im sure they would pick up on todays game.
Click to expand...

I agree with Chris. I believe todays techniques are better but as Chris said if those guys of old played with the new generation they'd master the new techniques pretty quickly. They adapted to the situation at the time just as they would today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top