In my opinion, today's players, coming from such a larger swath of terra firma, would mop the floor with the players of old.
Old 9-ball players vs the New
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
heard Archer say that Buddy Hall was the greatest 9ball player he had ever seen. i guess u can classify Buddy as player from 70's-90's ?
Pretty silly discussion.A great player is great no matter what year they were born.They all learn to adapt or they wouldn't be great.
Now that's a novel thought
Now that's a novel thought
Don't forget nowadays they can get their eyes fixed up in a jiffy !!! LASER SURGERY. But I agree the equipment differences are huge !!!
Now you tell us ! :grin-square:
wow... really?
People are arguing over the rack and picking lint because every shot counts. The break has become the most important shot of the game, wasn't back in the day. Some players back in the day used to give up the break because they thought that worked in their advantage. Not anymore. The breaks mean too much now. Which is why everything went to 10ball.
My opinion remains that the very best players (Worst, Lassiter, Kelly, Taylor, Allen, Bugs, Mizerak, Sigel, Hall, Varner, Hopkins, Rempe et al) from earlier generations could play with any players from any generation. I still believe Ronnie Allen to be the best One Pocket player I ever saw play the game. And I include Efren, Frost and everyone else in that group. Same goes for Taylor and Bugs in Banks. Many damn good bankers today, but better than Bugs and Taylor, I think not.
Big difference today is that there are many more good players worldwide than ever before. Literally thousands! Funny thing is that at a tournament like the U.S. Open with over 200 players, only ten or twelve have a realistic chance of winning. In the old days in fields of 64 elite players only five or six could win! Everyone else was just a contender trying to finish high.
Pretty doubtful in my mind that there are even a handful of guys on the planet who could play bar tables like Matlock, Keith and Buddy. And there are thousands of terrific bar table players today from all over North America and Europe. It's hard to make comparisons, that's true. But in any generation only a few players have the HEART of a champion. A lot of guys play good, but only a few can do it under extreme pressure.
If some how you could bring back Cornbread, Worst and Lassiter in their prime to play today's champions for some serious money, there might be a few youngsters who would get a little weak in the knees. These "oldtimers" were intimidating players. I still believe that Mizerak and Sigel in their prime would give todays Straight Pool players fits. They really played the game! It ain't all about running balls either. I have yet to see anyone play bar table Eight Ball quite like David Matlock in his prime. Overpowering is the word that comes to mind. He made that table and those balls submit to his will. And no one yet runs out ten balls quite as easily (and quickly) as Keith or as perfectly as Buddy.
Yes, Shane is great and could hold his own with anyone, but is he better? That I'm not so sure of. I see great players every year at the BCA. Very impressive players! Are they better than the three I mentioned? I think not. I look at it this way. How would today's best bar table players hold up against a McCready, a Hall or a Matlock? They'd have to have a helluva lot of heart to stand up to any one of these three and I don't care how good they play.
Big difference today is that there are many more good players worldwide than ever before. Literally thousands! Funny thing is that at a tournament like the U.S. Open with over 200 players, only ten or twelve have a realistic chance of winning. In the old days in fields of 64 elite players only five or six could win! Everyone else was just a contender trying to finish high.
Pretty doubtful in my mind that there are even a handful of guys on the planet who could play bar tables like Matlock, Keith and Buddy. And there are thousands of terrific bar table players today from all over North America and Europe. It's hard to make comparisons, that's true. But in any generation only a few players have the HEART of a champion. A lot of guys play good, but only a few can do it under extreme pressure.
If some how you could bring back Cornbread, Worst and Lassiter in their prime to play today's champions for some serious money, there might be a few youngsters who would get a little weak in the knees. These "oldtimers" were intimidating players. I still believe that Mizerak and Sigel in their prime would give todays Straight Pool players fits. They really played the game! It ain't all about running balls either. I have yet to see anyone play bar table Eight Ball quite like David Matlock in his prime. Overpowering is the word that comes to mind. He made that table and those balls submit to his will. And no one yet runs out ten balls quite as easily (and quickly) as Keith or as perfectly as Buddy.
Yes, Shane is great and could hold his own with anyone, but is he better? That I'm not so sure of. I see great players every year at the BCA. Very impressive players! Are they better than the three I mentioned? I think not. I look at it this way. How would today's best bar table players hold up against a McCready, a Hall or a Matlock? They'd have to have a helluva lot of heart to stand up to any one of these three and I don't care how good they play.
Last edited:
You're right. Players 20 years ago didn't give a damn about every shot. If they missed, why, they just figured, hey, c'est la vie.
cleary said:
Somebody should have informed Earl Strickland about that, poor fellow. He used to practice breaking and racking non-stop before tournaments. If only he had known that the break was not important when he was competing in tournaments. He might have been able to win more if he had just quit practicing that break, I'm thinking. You're correct.
cleary said:
Right.
cleary said:
:grin-square:
cleary said:
Well, cleary, you learn something new every day. Thanks for sharing.
JAM
you might want to ease of the gas a bit in this particular thread
its pretty simple as has been pointed out numerous times.
true champions will adapt no matter the era-or equipment(i hate jump cues and phenolics)
your statement of more luck these days is basically an insult to todays players-there will always be a luck factor in non call shot games-
and just becasue you have been around doesnt mean no one else has,
so please show a little respect for todays players(including chris and anyone who plays his speed)they cant be that lucky
you might want to ease of the gas a bit in this particular thread
its pretty simple as has been pointed out numerous times.
true champions will adapt no matter the era-or equipment(i hate jump cues and phenolics)
your statement of more luck these days is basically an insult to todays players-there will always be a luck factor in non call shot games-
and just becasue you have been around doesnt mean no one else has,
so please show a little respect for todays players(including chris and anyone who plays his speed)they cant be that lucky
Thanks for your kind advice. I hope you are kind enough to offer the same advice to those who are claiming old-school players are not as good as today's players.
In reference to your observation that I "have been around," the reason for me mentioning this in this thread is because I find it difficult to understand how somebody can form an opinion about performance of old-school players based on watching video clips when, in fact, there are not many video clips of older players in existence.
Technology has advanced which allows players of today to be videotaped numerous times.
As far as respect goes, the door swings both ways.
Last edited:
This isn't our first dance, Chris, to this song. Your "lol" sprinkled in your posts speaks volumes.
One really big difference in today's equipment and the overall game is the fast cloth. In the old days (pre 1990) a player had to have a powerful stoke to move the cue ball around the table. There was a lot less skidding and sliding. The cloth grabbed the balls and they rolled true. No one even talks about how powerful a player's stroke is anymore, unless it's in reference to some shot that Larry Nevel makes or the like. Larry is a throwback to a generation of players with big powerful strokes. Now it's all about the soft touch and slow roll.
I don't see anybody today with a stroke like Cornbread's or Miz's. Or as sweet and smooth as Kelly or Marvin. They could smooth stroke that ball all around the table. Only Efren of the modern players can do it quite like them.
I don't see anybody today with a stroke like Cornbread's or Miz's. Or as sweet and smooth as Kelly or Marvin. They could smooth stroke that ball all around the table. Only Efren of the modern players can do it quite like them.
Jam dont be confused-you deserve respect only as a person not a player
keith,buddy earl etc did all the work-trust me chris and everyone else with a clue has respect
i jumped in only because you were disrespecting one of todays
top players(yes chris-lol)
i am ignoring all the d plus onlookers in this one
and talking about your first statement
keith,buddy earl etc did all the work-trust me chris and everyone else with a clue has respect
i jumped in only because you were disrespecting one of todays
top players(yes chris-lol)
i am ignoring all the d plus onlookers in this one
and talking about your first statement
I agree here Chris. As a top gambler he understands something very important. It isn't just how good you are, it's how you play under pressure. That's why some guys never could bet a dime and others (Keith, Buddy, Cornbread, Hopkins) could bet the farm and still play great.
Yes, the top players from any era would adjust to the conditions and learn how to play on whatever equipment they were on. Let me tell you, 25-50 years ago, there were all kinds of tables being used and not all of them were so good. A good player learned to adjust to the equipment, and quick! At least if he was going to make money he did. :wink:
Thank you for the clarification. As a person and not as a player, I do think today's pool is more a game of luck than it used to be, especially after the rules were changed from two-shot/push-out in 9-ball.
I have the greatest respect in the world for professional-caliber players of today. I am well aware of how difficult it is for them to compete around the world, stay in stroke, and make ends meet. Pool today in 2010 caters to tournament soldiers. Technology has helped pool in so many ways with better equipment, tips, break cues, jump cues, cloth, mechanical racks, et cetera, but it has also killed another aspect of pool.
Again, I appreciate the clarification and thank you for your respectful reply.
Chris, I don't want to engage in a tit-for-tat with you. I just sent you a PM.
Well, good to see input from all around.....JAM, I play and travel a bit with one of those old school guys and Keith ran with him for a long time and I don't think today's gamblers realize the money that was made compared to betting today. Another aspect is playing with your own money....That's the real pressure when you got a wife and kids at home...So when someone talks pressure, let me here the responsibilities that are involved. The knowledge about the game and the stroke coming from that era is far more than players realize. I wish I could tell what I've learned from that era, but I had to pay for it in some way or another. I stopped the most powerful break in nine ball from pocketing any balls on the break for 8 straight racks and all balls in the rack were touching. Tell me how, lol....
He just shrugged his shoulders. Is that rack rigging or just paying attention to the little things...New gen should look up to Old gen and never stop learning no matter what.
He just shrugged his shoulders. Is that rack rigging or just paying attention to the little things...New gen should look up to Old gen and never stop learning no matter what.
Jay, you couldn't be more right! Those old players had seasoning. They were the like the great Jazz Musicians. They new how to play every game and could adapt easily. I would throw in very few of todays players in their league. You let Sigel, Hall, Strickland, Hall and Varner practice on a 4 inch table for 5 years and they could beat any of todays players in the long run. These old timers had the creativity over todays players. I would put SVB, Archer, Bustamante, Morris, Souget and Reyes in the older class of players. They would be right up there in the hunt.
I'm tired of watching the technical robots of today play. Give me Keith's sidearm, Earl's fearlessness, Archers break, Nick's pool intellect, Sigel's cue ball and Hall's steadiness!