Players of the past and their Fargo...

[jay helfert]

Vol. 1, No. 4 of Pat Fleming's Accu-Stats Newsletter has the sets the other way around, Jay. It says "Stats were kept during the finals as Crane toppled Buddy Hall 7-3, 7-0 for the $30,000 first prize. During the last set, Crane broke and ran out six of the seven racks while scoring an incredible TPA of 1.000."

That may be correct then. I did remember the scores and the format of the match, and that Wade only played perfect for half the match, and even that was a short race to seven. Meanwhile Bob Vanover once ran nine racks in a row to win the Texas State Championships 9-0. It could have actually been eleven racks, not sure on that. That was a real 1.000!

 

[maha]

I never played favorites! I called fouls on the best of them, and had to forfeit a few of them as well.

that is why jay is still around and respected.
your reputation is what follows you in life and how you are judged.

you can only ruin a good one and can never correct a bad one.

 

[Island Drive]

mizerack played incredible until he got so fat his belly kept him from his game.

he thought farther ahead in his balls and position than anyone ive ever seen.

In Denver, watched Miz eat 4 slices of pie in the metal bleachers.
(had to be helped down from the bleachers)
Camel Pro event.
Hey, he loved eatin' and smiled doing it.
Very few pool players were ''well'' fed.

 

[jay helfert]

In Denver, watched Miz eat 4 slices of pie in the metal bleachers.
(had to be helped down from the bleachers)
Camel Pro event.
Hey, he loved eatin' and smiled doing it.
Very few pool players were ''well'' fed.

He was always getting ready to "start a diet" the next day! That day never came.

 

[jbart65]

Different eras applies to many sports. I am not so sure it does with pool.

The table is still nine feet and plays pretty similar. Cloth and cushions are better. Cues, too. But great players would adjust quickly.

Just look at how quickly the best players adjusted to tighter Matchroom pockets.

Give guys like Sigel, Varner, Hall, heck even Mosconi, six months to practice and they would adjust quickly to tighter pockets, faster cloth and bouncier rails.

Good strokes, good techniques, good pattern play are timeless. Better cues and other equipment only help.

Let them watch new players and they’d pick up all the new tactics and strategies, too.

Would they win as much now? No. The biggest difference now is the sheer number of great players vs. the past.

The old players, transported in time, would need personal trainers, too. The pro pool game is as grueling as ever. Smoking, overeating and being out of shape would be bigger detriments.

 

[Rack’em]

I don’t think the top pro‘s of yesterday compare to the top players today. As amazing as Reyes, Strickland and Bustamante were, I believe they would only be in the low 800’s Fargo today. And I think the majority of the mainstream pro’s back then would only be around 770 to 790 such as Rempe, Davenport or Hopkins. Pool is now a global game. Back then 80 of the top 100 players in the world were Americans with the Filipino’s representing the majority of the top foreign players. Today it’s the exact opposite where hardly any of the top 100 are Americans. It’s hard to imagine that any of those old players could beat a Joshua Filler or Fedor Gorst of today. Perhaps in a short tournament race. The only variable is the equipment is so much better today such as low deflection shafts and layered tips, and that certainly needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Wayne Crimi]

I don’t think the top pro‘s of yesterday compare to the top players today. As amazing as Reyes, Strickland and Bustamante were, I believe they would only be in the low 800’s Fargo today. And I think the majority of the mainstream pro’s back then would only be around 770 to 790 such as Rempe, Davenport or Hopkins. Pool is now a global game. Back then 80 of the top 100 players in the world were Americans with the Filipino’s representing the majority of the top foreign players. Today it’s the exact opposite where hardly any of the top 100 are Americans. It’s hard to imagine that any of those old players could beat a Joshua Filler or Fedor Gorst of today. Perhaps in a short tournament race. The only variable is the equipment is so much better today such as low deflection shafts and layered tips, and that certainly needs to be taken into consideration.

I‘m not sure people realize how great Sigel was at his peak when he was winning 14.1 tournaments at the Roosevelt hotel.

I can recall two conversations during that period.

1. I was sitting in the stands. Sigel was behind me talking to some friends. He was playing at his peak at the time. I heard him say to his friends, “When I get to the table now, I feel like I can’t ever miss”. I don‘t think he was out of line to say that. I was there almost every day. He was playing at an amazing level.

2. I was sitting with Gene Nagy and we were watching Varner and Sigel playing on separate tables. I told Nagy I liked Varner’s game better because he took the balls off the table better. Gene looked at me like I was an idiot and said “It doesn’t matter, Sigel never misses”. He also added that he thought Sigel wouldn’t be able to sustain that level for long. Gene thought it was impossible to sustain that level for more than a few years. He was right about Sigel winning and I don’t think Sigel was as sharp in the years after although obviously still great.

if you just gave young Sigel the same higher quality equipment and time to get used to it, I think he would be as good as the best 14.1 players today. There’s just way more of them now.

Speaking of Hopkins. Hopkins came into the Golden Cue in Queens NY one night with Big Steve. I can’t remember the exact year, but it was either late 70s or 80/81. He gave weight to one of the regulars at nine ball. They played for about 90 minutes and Hopkins missed ONE called ball. He rattled one spot shot. If you think anyone today would have robbed “peak” Hopkins I think you are wrong. You can’t play nine ball better than I saw him play on that night.

 

[jbart65]

I've been watching a lot of old Accustats matches and the players in the 1990s were pretty damn good. They would adapt quickly to today's game if given six months with all the new equipment and strategies IMO.

The guy who would struggle the most might be Efren. His break is terrible relative to players today! It would be a much bigger handicap.

Almost seems like he didn't think breaking was really a pool "skill." But of course it is. I am surprised he never seemed to get much better at it.

 

[easy-e]

I‘m not sure people realize how great Sigel was at his peak when he was winning 14.1 tournaments at the Roosevelt hotel.

I can recall two conversations during that period.

1. I was sitting in the stands. Sigel was behind me talking to some friends. He was playing at his peak at the time. I heard him say to his friends, “When I get to the table now, I feel like I can’t ever miss”. I don‘t think he was out of line to say that. I was there almost every day. He was playing at a level I haven’t seen exceeded.

2. I was sitting with Gene Nagy and we were watching Varner and Sigel playing on separate tables. I told Nagy I liked Varner’s game better because he took the balls off the table better. Gene looked at me like I was an idiot and said “It doesn’t matter, Sigel never misses”. He also added that he thought Sigel wouldn’t be able to sustain that level for long. Gene thought it was impossible to sustain that level for more than a couple of years at most. He was right about Sigel winning and I don’t think Sigel was as sharp in the years after although obviously still great.

if you just gave him the same higher quality equipment and time to get used to it, there’s almost no way he wasn’t as good as the best 14.1 players today. There’s just way more of them now.

Speaking of Hopkins. Hopkins came into the Golden Cue in Queens NY one night with Big Steve. I can’t remember the exact year, but it was either late 70s or 80/81. He gave weight to one of the regulars at nine ball. They played for about 90 minutes and Hopkins missed ONE called ball. He rattled one spot shot. If you think anyone today would have robbed “peak” Hopkins you are out of your mind. You can’t play nine ball better than I saw him play on that night. It’s impossible.

You can if you make that spot shot...

 

[Justaneng]

I don’t think the top pro‘s of yesterday compare to the top players today. As amazing as Reyes, Strickland and Bustamante were, I believe they would only be in the low 800’s Fargo today. And I think the majority of the mainstream pro’s back then would only be around 770 to 790 such as Rempe, Davenport or Hopkins. Pool is now a global game. Back then 80 of the top 100 players in the world were Americans with the Filipino’s representing the majority of the top foreign players. Today it’s the exact opposite where hardly any of the top 100 are Americans. It’s hard to imagine that any of those old players could beat a Joshua Filler or Fedor Gorst of today. Perhaps in a short tournament race. The only variable is the equipment is so much better today such as low deflection shafts and layered tips, and that certainly needs to be taken into consideration.

My general inclination is to agree, but we still have a viable Strickland sitting there at 772 at age 62 and Reyes at a 769 at age 69. I agree with another poster that we'll see how Shane/Shaw, etc.. age out to get an idea what the aging curve looks like in pool.

As for the American talent pool, it quite possibly was deeper in the past. 10% of a 30 million person country being interested in pool generates the same talent base as 1% of a 300 million person country being interested in pool. The global talent pool now is absolutely bigger though. We all knew when Reagan told Gorbechov to "Tear down this wall!" that he was intending on bringing democracy to Poland so they become a pool power house 3 decades later.

 

[easy-e]

Fargorate was equivalated from Arizona ratings perhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/rating/fargorate/&psig=AOvVaw0JpgOM-qmJRMQLHa6Klz-N&ust=1708634745323000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CAUQjB1qFwoTCPCOxM6mvYQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
An pro with an Arizona rating of A++ began @770 FR.
...

Arizona, as long as I've been around, never used the letter system you're referring to. They had number ratings up to 10, then started adding + to the 10 as the pros started winning too much. I think Scott Frost and Mitch Ellerman were a 10++. The chart your link sends us to shows that pretty clearly.

 

[Wayne Crimi]

My general inclination is to agree, but we still have a viable Strickland sitting there at 772 at age 62 and Reyes at a 769 at age 69. I agree with another poster that we'll see how Shane/Shaw, etc.. age out to get an idea what the aging curve looks like in pool.

As for the American talent pool, it quite possibly was deeper in the past. 10% of a 30 million person country being interested in pool generates the same talent base as 1% of a 300 million person country being interested in pool. The global talent pool now is absolutely bigger though. We all knew when Reagan told Gorbechov to "Tear down this wall!" that he was intending on bringing democracy to Poland so they become a pool power house 3 decades later.

That's the way I feel about it.

The game has slowly been dying in the US but growing rapidly in many other areas of the world. The result may have been fewer great players in the US but way more great international players. That nets out to way higher overall global quality even though the US has declined.

The one problem with using Fargo ratings is that they are calculated based on who you are beating and losing to. There is no real base anchoring skill to a number. So let's say for example 10 years from now pool players are a lot better, that could potentially move Shane and Shaw's ratings down even if they were still playing just as well. They would just be moving down on a relative basis. Same thing could happen in reverse.

That's why I think Accu-Stats may be a better objective rating for analysis over long time periods. It's just counting shots and errors which are the same over time. The only major things you can't control for with Accu Stats are equipment changes like more accurate cues, superior cloth, tighter pockets etc... But if we had a table of Accu-Stats ratings for the elite players in the elite tournaments charted over time, I think we would have a good objective measurement to then start a subjective discussion about equipment and whether the best players are actually better or the talent is just deeper.

 

[Wayne Crimi]

I may want to amend some of what I've been saying.

When I played regularly years ago, most tables had larger pockets than they use in tournaments today. I remember some of the 14.1 tournaments I watched at the Roosevelt Hotel. They used tables with bucket pockets. I just started playing again after a very long layoff (not particularly well I might add). I've been playing on a very easy table with big pockets. Yesterday I went to RAXX in Long Island and played on a tighter pocket table like they use more often these days in tournaments. My pocketing dropped more significantly than I remembered from my playing on tighter pockets in my youth. Given how the players today pocket on these tighter pockets, I may have underestimated just how good some of the very best players are these days.

 

[Wayne Crimi]

A big skill difference I see comparing eras is kicking and breaking.

Today's top guys kick so well they are playing to kick safe, or at least trying to separate the cue and object ball as much as possible. In the old days, they mostly kicked hard and hoped to get lucky.

Similarly, the break was always as hard as you can and squat the cue. Today's players are trying to execute something specific depending on how the table is breaking.

Those two things may not seem that large, but when two players are capable of consistently running out, every seemingly small advantage is amplified.

The old guys would need to quickly incorporate these skills into their games to be competitive.

When it comes to kicking you have to remember that back in 70s and 80s (and maybe longer) they mostly played push out and there were almost no jump cues. You were generally pushing to a place that allowed you see the ball and have either a rough shot where you could also potentially play safe or to a kick you knew you could make and separate the cue and object balls or also play safe. There was no reason to develop the elite kicking and jumping skills the players have today. But imo that would hardly be a major stumbling block for an elite player of those days to develop as the rules changed.

 

[fjk]

When it comes to kicking you have to remember that back in 70s and 80s (and maybe longer) they mostly played push out and there were almost no jump cues. You were generally pushing to a place that allowed you see the ball and have either a rough shot where you could also potentially play safe or to a kick you knew you could make and separate the cue and object balls or also play safe. There was no reason to develop the elite kicking and jumping skills the players have today. But imo that would hardly be a major stumbling block for an elite player of those days to develop as the rules changed.

There's a dozen guys today that could jump a full ball with amazing accuracy. In the 80's players were mainly jumping to get a good hit. Maybe pocket a ball close to the hole. Last year I was watching Shaw practice his jumping. He was jumping a full ball and making 80% of object balls. He was a better shot maker jumping than I am shooting level. I understand Gorst is even better. That's a huge change to get use to.

 

[Wayne Crimi]

There's a dozen guys today that could jump a full ball with amazing accuracy. In the 80's players were mainly jumping to get a good hit. Maybe pocket a ball close to the hole. Last year I was watching Shaw practice his jumping. He was jumping a full ball and making 80% of object balls. He was a better shot maker jumping than I am shooting level. I understand Gorst is even better. That's a huge change to get use to.

I can't disagree. I just think if the great players of the 70s and 80s were playing with today's rules instead of playing push out, they would have developed much better kicking skills out of necessity. If they had good jump cues they would develop those skills too. Maybe not everyone would be as elite at both, but some would be great at it.

IMO Shaw is an incredible shot maker.