Players of the past and their Fargo...
- Thread starter billb
- Start date
Shaw....
Hohmann in his prime would have been comparable. Rained hundreds. And that break shot!
I got to see that up close. I played him in a straight pool tournament back in the 80s. I think he beat me 125 to 20-something. We were playing on an old table with old, sticky balls so he didn't have any big runs. I think 50, 60 or 70...but watching him play was just a thing a beauty. He was always about 10 inches from the object ball, always had the right angle, and never left the cue on the rail. In short, there was never a chance of him missing, you just have to hope he got a bad roll on his break. Oh, despite the score being lopsided, he played his guts out on every safety exchange. I think it was always his goal to whitewash his opponents if at all possible. Some guys just have no off switch and he was one of them.
I find bar box pool both enjoyable to play and to watch. Is it less difficult in a lot of way than a nine foot table....yes.
But its not a gimmick. Its a smaller table. Simple as that.
And, from a business standpoint, those smaller tables bring millions of players into leagues and millions into establishments to spend their hard earned money all while sustaining the existence of the sport. That has to mean something. Shortstop level players on big tables dont pay the bills. Working people who decide to play pool for enjoyment and competition pay the bills. And if a bar table creates that platform, so be it.
Respectfully, bar box pool isnt for everyone but it also isnt a gimmick. Thats like saying doubles tennis is a gimmick and only singles matters. Or that a driver in golf is a necessity even though maybe a player skilled enough could win a tournament with a 3 wood as his long club.
I dont know anything about the distance of missing shots. I miss from all distances.
never saw him play bob but saw plenty of the other old greats. and as now pretty much whoever was in the best dead stroke and got the best of the rolls usually beat the other. still the best came on top when the smoke cleared. as in any event or contest.
mike euhemia in new york was the best at just running balls i ever saw. he never stopped.
mike euhemia in new york was the best at just running balls i ever saw. he never stopped.
So because you consider a barbox a gimmick, it’s just simply ”the way it is”?
APA, TAP, CSI and a number of others disagree based on their business model.
Believe it or not, the different tables can and do successfully coexist.
And the game can be enjoyed just the same by those who elect to play on the smaller table. I consistently play on a 7 footer and 9 footer. I enjoy it regardless and I certainly don’t consider either a gimmick. Its simply two different arenas.
There really isn’t a Fargo for straight pool. Wish there was.
I would think anyone that dominated an era would automatically be considered in the 830 range since Fargo is about wins against your opponents' Fargorate. If we only consider 9-ball, then you'd have to think that in their prime, Sigel, Strickland had a pretty long dominant period in tournament play. Varner had his years, but I don't think he had the same stretch of years. If we include 14.1 in the discussion, Mizerak enters that space. I didn't see prime Worst, Lassiter, Mosconi etc. play, so I can't make any sound thoughts on them.
Up until Gorst and Filler, I wouldn't have said I saw anyone that was better than prime Sigel and prime Strickland.
Up until Gorst and Filler, I wouldn't have said I saw anyone that was better than prime Sigel and prime Strickland.
They used accustats in lots of tournaments back to the 80s and 90s when a large portion of those guys were at their peak.
You could probably go back and watch some of the new guys matches and see how they are doing using that measurement.
"Boom Boom" "Billy Johnson" Wade Crane played as good as anyone for a while. and Kim Davenport was no slouch.
Adapting old 14.1 matches to align with Fargo sounds interesting to me.
Suppose both players race to 200 or 150, a data formatting takes place then the Fargo routine kicks in.
Fargo integration means the ball count has to be translated to a 9 ball record format.
I have initial ideas, but will say more later.
Suppose both players race to 200 or 150, a data formatting takes place then the Fargo routine kicks in.
Fargo integration means the ball count has to be translated to a 9 ball record format.
I have initial ideas, but will say more later.
14.1 is funny. I thought Efren and to a lesser extent Archer proved 30 years ago -- that it's just another game when played by the truly elite. Now we've seen what Shaw did more recently and some still have their views that yesterday's players were better at it. Even Schmidt has shown what a present day 2nd tier pro can do with that game.
I get that those that played it more regularly, exhibited more elegance when playing the game, but that doesn't pay the bills. Surely, one-pocket is more complicated than 14.1 and the greats figure that out after a few months of serious play.
I get that those that played it more regularly, exhibited more elegance when playing the game, but that doesn't pay the bills. Surely, one-pocket is more complicated than 14.1 and the greats figure that out after a few months of serious play.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I like small tables with tight pockets and fast cloth. The extra traffic makes maneuvering a challenge and you often need a delicate touch and precise cue tip placement.I find bar box pool both enjoyable to play and to watch. Is it less difficult in a lot of way than a nine foot table....yes.
But its not a gimmick. Its a smaller table. Simple as that.
And, from a business standpoint, those smaller tables bring millions of players into leagues and millions into establishments to spend their hard earned money all while sustaining the existence of the sport. That has to mean something. Shortstop level players on big tables dont pay the bills. Working people who decide to play pool for enjoyment and competition pay the bills. And if a bar table creates that platform, so be it.
Respectfully, bar box pool isnt for everyone but it also isnt a gimmick. Thats like saying doubles tennis is a gimmick and only singles matters. Or that a driver in golf is a necessity even though maybe a player skilled enough could win a tournament with a 3 wood as his long club.
I dont know anything about the distance of missing shots. I miss from all distances.
As far as missing goes, mine always occur in that last inch when the ball doesn't go in the hole.
One pocket is not a game where pocketing each turn is expected.
One pocket is more like a game of economics, where turns are used to continue passing for more turns.
Mathematics for games like that are considered expensive research.
Great comment about the complicated nature of one pocket, it is true.
From all the matches of Rempe I've watched, I would say he wasn't as good of a shot maker as his top peers -- Sigel and Varner. Today's players would have the edge over him as far as getting to the first shot at 14.1 or any game for that matter.
That's the huge part about today's game. Going back even further, someone like Irving Crane, from what I've read and just seeing a little bit of footage of him with his table demeanor -- I'm certain he was a nightmare to play against when it came to the safety exchanges. But today's players fire balls in that previous generations felt were too low percentage. AND THEY MAKE THEM!
That's the huge part about today's game. Going back even further, someone like Irving Crane, from what I've read and just seeing a little bit of footage of him with his table demeanor -- I'm certain he was a nightmare to play against when it came to the safety exchanges. But today's players fire balls in that previous generations felt were too low percentage. AND THEY MAKE THEM!
Yes
I feel Rempe isn’t getting the respect he has coming. Mueccii felt he played one pocket as good as anybody…..but he didn’t gamble much so he didn’t get much credit for it. And he was the best snooker player of the American players…he ran some hundreds and beat some national champions. He packed it in because he started too late in life and wouldn’t produce what he could in pool.
Nick Varner is a 788 at 75 years old.
I think most of those old school players where in the 810-830 range in their primes. I think they could have been higher if they had the knowledge of safes, kicking etc that players have access to today.
Anyone over 800 can pocket balls and run out. Now it is more about how they handle safety exchanges vs opponents of similar skill that determines how high they go in my opinion.
Filler's fargo continues to climb as he becomes more polished in that department.