Players today are better
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
av84fun said:
Nov 24, 2007 - After being retired for 5 years, at the age of 36 (10 years older than Federer) - Sampras never faced a break point and handed Federer a 7-6 (8), 6-4 defeat Saturday at the Venetian Macao arena, finishing 1-2 against the top-ranked Swiss player.
You are right, Federer does play at a higher level than the players before him.
pool-is-cool
Registered
JoeyInCali said:Throw 15 balls on the table.
Your life is on the line.
Who'd you pick to run those 15 balls in rotation???
I'll pick at 25 yrs. old Efren.
i choose me... and if i can't do it then at least i was the master of my own destiny.
av84fun said:
Jim,
It's my guess that these players are NOT out there. Over the past few years, myself and others have started to hear these outrageous claims of 200+ runs by people that have "only been playing a few weeks".
This all started around the time that John released his DVD with his 245 ball run. On that DVD, John states that he..."gave himself a couple of weeks" to try and get a 150 on tape. John also discusses that not all the top players play 14.1 every day, but if they did, Mosconi's record would definitely be in danger. I think some people took these comments and rolled them into these tall tales. (lol - yeah John - its YOUR fault - lol) Some people have started these rumors about so and so running over 100 the first time they ever played the game or 200 during the first few weeks they played - straight pool isn't that easy.
The game is frustrating. The game is challenging. The game is more than just running balls. The game is not played by the masses because it is so frustrating. Most of the posts over in the straight pool forum discuss the the frustrating aspect and the challenges this game presents the players.
As an old school trained 14.1 player, I have hit the 200 mark a few times. Every single time I did, I had to get lucky - more than a few times. I had to combine that luck with skill, and I had to have balls the size of grapefruits to open up some clusters here and there to keep the run alive. I didn't learn how to do all of that overnight, or in a few weeks. It took years of applying what I was taught. The high run I claim is my 212 that was done on a tight tight 9ft GC4 with new Simonis cloth. I also have a 256 on an 8 foot Brunswick Amherst with buckets. I don't count the 256 because I hold my game to a very high standard, and that table did not meet those standards.
PoolBum said:
Mike was still winning when he quit. He told me the pressure to win was so great and the prize money was only good if you won, that he couldn't take it. He had to start making cues to make money and not have such pressure to make money. If the money was decent like in golf, he would still be playing and would have shown why I think he is the best ever.
metallicane said:
Exactly. Mike Sigel IMO had nothing left to prove to anybody. He left it all on the table. He was still winning in 1993 - and IMO it was smart of him to go out on top. In the 1980's he was billed as "Pool's Winningest Professional" - and he was. Over 100 titles in several disciplines (not just 9 ball) and IMO he was and still is on my list of top 14.1 players in history. His 150 and out against Mike Zuglan is by far and away the greatest display of straight pool skill and mastery I have ever witnessed. Most people will agree with me on that.
Mike hit a point in his life and decided to move in other directions. Many people make assumptions about Mike and his lifestyle, or the criticize him for his quirks and personality flaws - to each their own. Most of them only know of his public persona, and have never sat down and had a conversation with him. We all have things about ourselves that make us difficult to be around at times, but we're not like that "all of the time". Mike plays and teaches here in the Orlando area. He is very nice to everybody he talks to - very friendly and appreciative and always willing to give his insight on some of his greatest battles at the table.
Mike's a complicated man, most that have achieved his level of success are just as complicated. Just remember that Efren considers Mike his toughest opponent and the greatest player he ever played. To me, that says it all.
.
.
.
Players
Players today are not better! I will concede that there are more good players than like let's say 30-40 years ago. The sport has grown. There was a time when the us players were the best nine ball players in the world by a long shot. This is no longer the case, at best they are on equal footing with the rest of the international community. Players today do have the advantage of videos, pool instruction, and great equipment to play on. All those things help to bring a player along faster. This does not mean they are better. The champions of years past are every bit as good as the champions of today.
Players today are not better! I will concede that there are more good players than like let's say 30-40 years ago. The sport has grown. There was a time when the us players were the best nine ball players in the world by a long shot. This is no longer the case, at best they are on equal footing with the rest of the international community. Players today do have the advantage of videos, pool instruction, and great equipment to play on. All those things help to bring a player along faster. This does not mean they are better. The champions of years past are every bit as good as the champions of today.
Jim,av84fun said:
There are two factors that play a huge role in the length of runs; the difficulty of the equipment, and an opponent. When playing on tough equipment, for large dollars, it seems dang tough to run 50.
I've seen the Schmidt - Pagulayan 6 hour match at DCC, and TAR Schmidt-Harriman 7 hour match - both on tough equipment with lots of money on the line. There have been exactly TWO runs over 100 (a 112 and a 116); both by JOHN SCHMIDT. There were 2 more runs in the 80's (one by Pags, one by Danny). Otherwise 50 is a damn fine inning (I could add up the runs over 50 in those matches, but it wouldn't be very many).
I do not believe there are hundreds of players who could run 100's under such circumstances. I would love to see it though.
P.S. - a high run in exhibition; with no penalty for missing seems an artificial way to measure the ability of players......might as well use something like 9-ball for determining the best player.
Last edited:
Blackjack said:
Blackjack -
Great post and I could not agree more. Mike lived in my home town for awhile and I used to see him play around town and it was a joy to watch. I got to know him after he moved to Orlando and he has always been nice to me. Efren saying he was his toughest opponent says a ton about the player Mike was. If I am not mistaken, Mike got the better of Efren back then more than not.
I agree that there are more great players today than there were 20-30 years ago. That said, I just got done watching Earl Strickland beat Dave Bollman 13-2 in 55 minutes on an old accustats. Dave Bollman isnt the fastest player in the world either. It was the finals of a big tournament. The way Earl was hitting them at this tournament, I think he would have beaten anyone, and I mean ANYONE.
Ironman hits this on the head, the players of today have more consistency, but how would they have won sitting in their chair as Earl runs rack after rack after rack.
Ironman hits this on the head, the players of today have more consistency, but how would they have won sitting in their chair as Earl runs rack after rack after rack.