Just wondering how the old time players stack up to today's players. When Doyle Brunson won the World Series of Poker back to back 76 & 77 I believe, there was only about 300 entries. Not taking anything away from Doyle, he's the man. Are their more or less good players today? How many people entered say the Derby or a tourny that size in the mid 70's.
Old Players Vs. New Players
- Thread starter Squinty42
- Start date
There may not have been as many champion-caliber players around the world *then* as there are *today.*
In the '70s, Jose Parica led the Filipino Invasion, followed by Efren, Bustie, Santos, Ronnie, et cetera. Pool was cool in the Philippines at that time, but there was no money in it for these champions, so they came to the States.
When they experienced the pristine equipment here, to include balls that are the same size, new cloth, and level tables, they couldn't believe how easy it was to win tournaments. In fact, at that time, 9-ball (rotation 9-ball) was the game du jour. The Filipinos were used to playing 15-ball rotation. Running 9 balls in rotation in American tournaments was a piece of cake for them, especially on this kind of equipment. :thumbup:
Pool is now attracting players from around the world, especially in the Asian-Pacific countries.
The younger readers of this forum will say that the younger players of today were better than the players from yesterday. They base this knowledge on limited videos they have seen and word of mouth. Of course, there was not much video coverage, if any, of players running racks with the older generation.
It is almost like saying was Stevie Ray Vaughn or Jimi Hendrix a better guitar player than John Mayer. All three are regarded as great guitar players. The technology today allows John Mayer to reach a broader audience than Vaughn and Hendrix. :smile:
i think they would stack up just like the players of today stack up against the players of today. i mean, even if there was an initial onslaught of the older players by a guy like frost (because of equipment), i know the players from the past would adjust and be just as competitive as they could/would have ever been. i just think that way, my answer is they'd stack up just fine, no advantages to either young or old after an adjusting period to equipment etc.
now, there are more "bad" players playing decent now, but i dont think that affects the differences between top levels at all.
There may not have been as many champion-caliber players around the world *then* as there are *today.*
In the '70s, Jose Parica led the Filipino Invasion, followed by Efren, Bustie, Santos, Ronnie, et cetera. Pool was cool in the Philippines at that time, but there was no money in it for these champions, so they came to the States.
When they experienced the pristine equipment here, to include balls that are the same size, new cloth, and level tables, they couldn't believe how easy it was to win tournaments. In fact, at that time, 9-ball (rotation 9-ball) was the game du jour. The Filipinos were used to playing 15-ball rotation. Running 9 balls in rotation in American tournaments was a piece of cake for them, especially on this kind of equipment. :thumbup:
Pool is now attracting players from around the world, especially in the Asian-Pacific countries.
The younger readers of this forum will say that the younger players of today were better than the players from yesterday. They base this knowledge on limited videos they have seen and word of mouth. Of course, there was not much video coverage, if any, of players running racks with the older generation.
It is almost like saying was Stevie Ray Vaughn or Jimi Hendrix a better guitar player than John Mayer. All three are regarded as great guitar players. The technology today allows John Mayer to reach a broader audience than Vaughn and Hendrix. :smile:
There is many more people who play pool today due to the modern nature of pool. It's a social game now that everyone can play, whereas before is was pretty much exclusive to men who could go to a pool hall, with a few exceptions. Because of that, I think percentage wise, there is a lot more good players today, simply for the fact that pool can reach a bigger audience now.
Also, back in the day we pretty much only heard of american champions, now we can see that pool has champions and great players from all over the world - europe..asia..south america. this gives us the oppurtunity to see a much larger spectrum, and number of great players.
It's hard to compare champions of the past to those of the present IMO. Different times, equipment, playing conditions... I would say that they were all the best that the times allowed them to be.
However, I will say that Hendrix and Vaughn were MUCH better guitar players than Mayer, no contest, technology or not. Those two could strangle a guitar strings and make it do amazing things. Mayer is just ok
There is many more people who play pool today due to the modern nature of pool. It's a social game now that everyone can play, whereas before is was pretty much exclusive to men who could go to a pool hall, with a few exceptions. Because of that, I think percentage wise, there is a lot more good players today, simply for the fact that pool can reach a bigger audience now.
Also, back in the day we pretty much only heard of american champions, now we can see that pool has champions and great players from all over the world - europe..asia..south america. this gives us the oppurtunity to see a much larger spectrum, and number of great players.
It's hard to compare champions of the past to those of the present IMO. Different times, equipment, playing conditions... I would say that they were all the best that the times allowed them to be.
However, I will say that Hendrix and Vaughn were MUCH better guitar players than Mayer, no contest, technology or not. Those two could strangle a guitar strings and make it do amazing things. Mayer is just ok
Well said, and I agree with every single word you posted, especially as it pertains to Hendrix and Vaughn. :thumbup:
PocketPoint
Banned
Freddy The Beard says the players of the depression era would destroy today's players because they had to win so badly just to buy food and such.
He also says the players of the 60's and 70's would destroy the players of today.
He also says the players of the 60's and 70's would destroy the players of today.
I like this statement.This is the information age so a lot of young players
know stuff that older players took years to acquire.
Ronnie Allen said of a young player "It took me 10 years to learn that shot."
But what the young players today don't have is the 'road'.
Action created a lot of tough players.Relatively cheap table time allowed
a lot of action.
There are many crack shots today at a shooting range...they have great
equipment and know how to use it.
But how many are ready to stand up against an old time gunfighter...
who is used to putting up his life?
Used to be I could walk into a bar and drink all night and buy rounds off of a bar table. I'm a better player now and if I tried to do that just about anywhere in Phoenix I will get my ass handed to me.
The average skill level has gone way up but you can only get so close to perfect before the distinction between players blurs so the TOP players of today would match up well against champions past.( given the absence of exogenous factors). The bell shaped curve (normal distribution) has moved to the right.
The average skill level has gone way up but you can only get so close to perfect before the distinction between players blurs so the TOP players of today would match up well against champions past.( given the absence of exogenous factors). The bell shaped curve (normal distribution) has moved to the right.
There is many more people who play pool today due to the modern nature of pool. It's a social game now that everyone can play, whereas before is was pretty much exclusive to men who could go to a pool hall, with a few exceptions. Because of that, I think percentage wise, there is a lot more good players today, simply for the fact that pool can reach a bigger audience now.
Also, back in the day we pretty much only heard of american champions, now we can see that pool has champions and great players from all over the world - europe..asia..south america. this gives us the oppurtunity to see a much larger spectrum, and number of great players.
It's hard to compare champions of the past to those of the present IMO. Different times, equipment, playing conditions... I would say that they were all the best that the times allowed them to be.
However, I will say that Hendrix and Vaughn were MUCH better guitar players than Mayer, no contest, technology or not. Those two could strangle a guitar strings and make it do amazing things. Mayer is just ok
I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence. You maybe right due to the leagues, but the one thing you may need to consider is how many pool halls there use to be. I don't know how old you are but back in the day there were 1,000's of pool halls in America. Every small town in America had a least one pool hall (I mean small towns, 2,000 population). The county seat where I grew up had a population of 2,000 maybe 2,500 and that town had 2 pool halls.
Cities like New York and Chicago had hundreds of pool halls. Pretty hard for me to thing that many pool halls across America being supported by less players than we have today.
Now, comparing players from the past to modern players is very difficult. I think Champions from the past would be able to compete with modern Champions. However, I'm not sure all the top players of today would be able to get in the time machine, go back and play with the Champions of the past, some would but not all. I think the difference is equipment.
I think there are more good players (A players and above) today than 80 years ago. I think this is due to better equipment and access to information. Back in the day, information was not shared as freely.
The best player I've ever been around (I play with James Walden, Joey Gray, and Chip Compton) was a man named Joe Reed. Back in 1975, Joe was in his mid to late 70's. Joe was born in an oil field camp in Oklahoma back when Oklahoma was still a territory. Joe might not have even had a birth certificate. Joe was a road hustler from back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. When Joe was in his late 70's I'm not sure he could even see the end of a snooker table, but I've seen Joe walk over an get a house cue off the wall and run a snooker table.
I truly believe there were great pool players way back that none of us will ever know about. There were many players, like Joe, who never played in Tournament and tried to stay in the shadows.
Steven
Poker is primarily a game of luck. It's not brain surgery, it requires little to no execution. Yeah, yeah, I'm not saying it's like flipping coins, you can't be completely brain dead, but with some common sense and a pile of money, you can eventually hit big.
It's a lot like grabbing the ring off the merry-go-round. If you have enough money (like Doyle did) to get on the ride, fail, get back on the ride, fail, and keep getting back in line for the ride, soon or later you're going to win.
In poker having an endless pit of money and no fear of fading the bad beats, soon or later you'll win. And the smaller the line, the more often it will happen.
Pool on the other hand requires talent, pure talent. There are more good players today than in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that. Back then you walk into a poolroom and there may be one or two very good players. Today there's liable to be a dozen or more capable players.
Also, back then, there was far more 14.1 being played and talent really showed. Today, with nineball, the game itself allows more players to be competitive.
I think 1pkt is enjoying a resurgence though and there is a game very similar to 14.1 in terms of talent and creativity. There's no numbers on the balls to tell you what to do in that game either.
This is way off. It was more like 20-30 players. The WSOP did not get 300+ until the late 90's.
I watched one of the 14.1 player reviews from John Schmidt the other night and Danny Diliberto was commentating with John. Danny said he believed that not only were there more players who play well today, he also went on to say that he thought the players of today were better than the players of the past.
That is a strong statement from someone who was not only there, but was also one of the strong players of the past. Anyone who is a straight pool champion (the game of choice in the time) during that era is someone I would listen to.
It surprised me that he said that. Typically, people believe the people in their era are the best, regardless of who you're talking to. There is a natural human bias toward believing things were better/greater when you were young and as you age things are worse.
John Schmidt made a comment regarding Danny Harriman in the same video. He said Harriman is a bank pool champion, and excellent one pocket player, and a 300 ball runner in straight pool, and no one talks about him in the discussions of champion level players. Danny Harriman would have without doubt been a top tier player in the past; his lack of mention often times with the great players should be an indication of the level of player today.
That is a strong statement from someone who was not only there, but was also one of the strong players of the past. Anyone who is a straight pool champion (the game of choice in the time) during that era is someone I would listen to.
It surprised me that he said that. Typically, people believe the people in their era are the best, regardless of who you're talking to. There is a natural human bias toward believing things were better/greater when you were young and as you age things are worse.
John Schmidt made a comment regarding Danny Harriman in the same video. He said Harriman is a bank pool champion, and excellent one pocket player, and a 300 ball runner in straight pool, and no one talks about him in the discussions of champion level players. Danny Harriman would have without doubt been a top tier player in the past; his lack of mention often times with the great players should be an indication of the level of player today.
I disagree with you about Doyle. Guaranteed if you played him over any length of time he would get the best of you repeatedly. Theres a lot more skill then people think about poker.That said, If your really good at math and use your chips as tools you have a good chance of beating anyone on a given day. It's not as hard as pool though. Todays pool pros are not better or worse then pool players of old. If you could play then you could play now.
This argument has gone on in every game since the beginning of time.
Pool has taken on many changes since the was originally created.
Yesteryear had slower cloth and heavier balls and especially, the cue-balls.
Today the game is more offensive than ever before. Jump cues have changed everything.
The funniest thing about the game is: "If you could play it in the 1920's you could still play it now. You either got it or you don't. The era you played, was the only difference."
Pool has taken on many changes since the was originally created.
Yesteryear had slower cloth and heavier balls and especially, the cue-balls.
Today the game is more offensive than ever before. Jump cues have changed everything.
The funniest thing about the game is: "If you could play it in the 1920's you could still play it now. You either got it or you don't. The era you played, was the only difference."
We can agree to disagree. You bet he would get the best of me, because I'd be sh!ttin my pants making a call I felt I should make because my pockets aren't bottomless.
The only broke poker champions are the dead lucky ones, all the others just get back in line again and again and you hear their names again and again. They play on High Stakes making single bets no mortal man can afford.
Also, I suppose one man's common sense is another man's calculator. Poker sure isn't as difficult as chess, and tougher than roulette.
Tom, I think you are old enough to remember that in talking about the best players of 30+ years ago, we would often refer to who had the best stroke. That is rarely even mentioned today. The equipment in use today, has in some ways made the game easier. No longer is a powerful stroke a necessary attribute to being a top player. Pool remains the same game, with 9-Ball and One Pocket still the most popular versions, just as they were 30 and 40 years ago. But the way the game is played has changed dramatically, for the reasons you stated above.
My own personal opinion is that the best players of yesterday are the equals of the best players of today. I saw great players in the 60's and 70's, a lot of them. The difference today imo is that there are more good players, because of the way the sport has expanded. It used to be a national sport, primarily confined to the USA. No more. Now there are good players everywhere!
I will add this though. I think the best rotation players today at games like 9-Ball and Ten Ball may be playing at a higher level than ever before. I seriously doubt that I've ever seen better pool shot than by young Mr. Wu or his compatriot Yang. Same could be said for the top filipinos, although Dennis looks to me like a young Parica clone, with a very similar style. I would put Parica in the older generation and perhaps Efren as well, and there aren't any current players (other than the two I mentioned) that play any better than these guys.
I still say Ronnie played One Pocket at a higher level than just about anyone I see playing the game today. Ronnie likes to tout the top young players, that's just always been part of his hustle. It comes naturally to him to tell everyone how good they play, just before he beats them. He did that same thing for years. He would tell a guy he plays way too strong for Ronnie to spot him a ball and Ronnie would give him three balls anyway, and "outrun the nuts" as he liked to say. There is not one player today (other than Efren) that can play the way Ronnie did. Of course, Jersey Red, Eddie Taylor and Ed Kelly were not far behind either. Those later three in their prime would give any and all of today's One Pocket heros fits. Yes, Scott Frost has a big game and Gabe is a very clever player, but if you think that they would be the favorites over the best old timers I would have to disagree. Even the best of my generation, Mizerak and Sigel, played exceptional One Pocket even by today's standards. Same for Buddy.
Again this is just my opinion based on what I see and observe. Bottom line, the best players of yesterday were just as good as the best today. There were just fewer of them then. If you could somehow bring Harold Worst back, he would still be a winner. He had talent, heart and character! In large doses I might add. He was the kind of man who would figure out the equipment and how to play within days. He was the "Efren" of his era. And once he got the hang of the game, you were dead! He had more heart in his little finger than any ten players I see today. Parica also had a huge heart. Don't get me wrong, there are players today who exhibit a lot of courage and heart. But none are any better than Harold, Parica or Cornbread. These guys were fearless and embraced all challenges. I never saw any one of them back down from anybody!
Jay, There is no question there are far more better players today.
I think one of the main reasons you see, key word, so many better players and shot making skills is: "They are playing on tables that the lighting is so much better than, BACK IN TE DAY."
I descibed today's conditions to a young lady this way. "It's like looking in your make-up mirrow, you see everything."
I played in rooms it was difficult to see the darker balls when they were close to the rails.
I think one of the main reasons you see, key word, so many better players and shot making skills is: "They are playing on tables that the lighting is so much better than, BACK IN TE DAY."
I descibed today's conditions to a young lady this way. "It's like looking in your make-up mirrow, you see everything."
I played in rooms it was difficult to see the darker balls when they were close to the rails.
