Also, in late 1990 West End Billiards held a round robin, $10,000 winner take all shoot-out between Varner, Sigel, Hopkins and Jimmy Fusco with Varner coming out on top over Hopkins. While not related to Earl in anyway, it does confirm that Sigel was a pretty good one pocket player. He beat Hopkins twice and at the time, Hop was considered one of the best one pocket players around.
Player of the decade Earl or Sigel?
- Thread starter Raph Cleary
- Start date
I remember that Fusco was a late replacement for someone that couldn't make or dropped out for some reason and I can't remember who that was.
Last edited:
This is a great article. Thanks for digging it up. Must read imo.
Probably Rempe. He played all games good too.
xX-Wizard-Xx
Well-known member
kind of feels like this is the right question but the wrong decade
Only one of the names mentioned is still shooting Liver's out...
CanadianGuy
Well-known member
crazy that today's field is so full of talent, quality and quantity, that guys like Fedor and Gorst will win maybe one major annually
Raph Cleary
Active member
Great find, an average of 1.304 by Reyes in 3-cushion is mighty strong!
And i'm surprised Reyes wasn't voted #1 for one pocket in 1991, after this performance against Grady the same year.
I remember reading this when it came out, and had to raise my eyebrow at the 9-ball ranking. I think it was a bit of recency bias, but the lack of respect for Earl was mind boggling Oddly (or fairly), the Miz was still held in high regard despite really being off the tournament trail compared to the others on the list.
I also remember being surprised that Efren was even listed in 9-ball considering his lack of titles.
Reyes was still learning the (improving his) game. Hopkins by far was regarded the best one pocket player at the time.
Between Sigel, Varner and Archer....I don't think Earl ever got a "player of the decade" kind of recognition, but rather he got something better, "player of the era" ...
That's just my opinion.
Regarding Reyes, I'm a huge fan and have said that he's the greatest over all skill wise across all the pocket billiard games, but Earl was the better 9 ball player and had the superior tournament record.
That's just my opinion.
Regarding Reyes, I'm a huge fan and have said that he's the greatest over all skill wise across all the pocket billiard games, but Earl was the better 9 ball player and had the superior tournament record.
On another note, not intending to change the subject ....but one of the most critical people of "Efrem" was and is Mike Sigel. For a long time I thought it was just sour grapes and his huge ego talking. Perhaps it's a factor yes. However, there is some objectivity to what Sigel is saying that most people are too afraid to lest they go against the prevailing group-think that has build up Efren to mythological levels.
If you sit down and look at things soberly, the records, the matches, the stats...and stop watching super kick shot youtube compiliations, Efren was human. Hall of Famer? Yes. One of the greatest to ever play the game? Yes. But the kind of hype he has been given is dispropportionate to the facts. Especially when it results in the diminishing of other players either intentionally or unintentionally. That is, some of the radical Efren hype in the past has caused the indirect consequence of diminishing others who deserve a lot more recognition than they are receiving. Overshadowing it's called. Some of it is unjustified.
Watch many of the matches of the 1980's and 1990's....
1. There was a lot of great play in those days. I almost side with the old timers in saying, in some ways better because you didn't have all these slow-poke euros.
2. Watch Efren against many of these people. He lost a lot of matches. He did not win a ton of tournaments.
If you sit down and look at things soberly, the records, the matches, the stats...and stop watching super kick shot youtube compiliations, Efren was human. Hall of Famer? Yes. One of the greatest to ever play the game? Yes. But the kind of hype he has been given is dispropportionate to the facts. Especially when it results in the diminishing of other players either intentionally or unintentionally. That is, some of the radical Efren hype in the past has caused the indirect consequence of diminishing others who deserve a lot more recognition than they are receiving. Overshadowing it's called. Some of it is unjustified.
Watch many of the matches of the 1980's and 1990's....
1. There was a lot of great play in those days. I almost side with the old timers in saying, in some ways better because you didn't have all these slow-poke euros.
2. Watch Efren against many of these people. He lost a lot of matches. He did not win a ton of tournaments.
Completely agree. Very well put. On a side note, I simply can't watch the young players. Especially from Europe. Everyone does the exact same routine and they move at a turtle pace. It's unwatchable to me. Filler excluded.