Players today are better

[Johnnyt]

I know this has been hashed over on here a lot over the years, but for a couple of years now off and on I've been researching the best older players. I myself am 67 years old and grew up in a poolroom and have seen a lot of them. I have always contended that today's athletes are faster, stronger, and in better shape than the ones of fifty or more years ago.

Anytime I said that about pool a good percentage would disagree with me. After reading about thirty books on pool history, famous players, and books of true pool stories, Then pouring over old tournament results and high runs I've come to the conclusion that it?s the same with pool.
There are many more top players now that are capable of winning a major tournament than fifty years ago.

The first thing that most will bring up is Willie Mosconi?s 526 -ball run. I say that was on an 8foot table with bucket pockets. Then they say, but he/they played on 10 foot tables. They played 14.1. There are very few times when they had to make a long shot. The best players only used the two corner pockets by the rack and the two side pockets for probably 99% of their shots. So the 10-foot table doesn't really come in to play in 14.1 with top players.

Most of the best players today don't play much if any 14.1. But when they do they seem to catch on very quickly and start getting high runs of 100 and 200. I believe if today's top players played strictly 14.1 that we would see a run of over 200 become very common. 14.1 is mostly a short position game, not going up and down the table like in 9-ball. I agree that 14.1 has less luck in it than 9-ball, but 9-ball is a harder game IMO. Johnnyt

 

[AZE]

Natural progression, the players of today should be better then the players of yesterday - because they expand and improve on the old knowledge and equipment. The same as in most any other sport.
That is not to take anything away from the older players, if they were born in this age they would've been better. More knowledge, better equipment, you know what I'm saying?

 

[Johnnyt]

Natural progression, the players of today should be better then the players of yesterday - because they expand and improve on the old knowledge and equipment. The same as in most any other sport.
That is not to take anything away from the older players, if they were born in this age they would've been better. More knowledge, better equipment, you know what I'm saying?

Exactly. Johnnyt

 

[ironman]

I know this has been hashed over on here a lot over the years, but for a couple of years now off and on I?ve been researching the best older players. I myself am 67 years old and grew up in a poolroom and have seen a lot of them. I have always contended that today?s athletes are faster, stronger, and in better shape than the ones of fifty or more years ago.

Anytime I said that about pool a good percentage would disagree with me. After reading about thirty books on pool history, famous players, and books of true pool stories, Then pouring over old tournament results and high runs I?ve come to the conclusion that it?s the same with pool.
There are many more top players now that are capable of winning a major tournament than fifty years ago.

The first thing that most will bring up is Willie Mosconi?s 526 -ball run. I say that was on an 8foot table with bucket pockets. Then they say, ?but he/they played on 10 foot tables.? They played 14.1. There are very few times when they had to make a long shot. The best players only used the two corner pockets by the rack and the two side pockets for probably 99% of their shots. So the 10-foot table doesn?t really come in to play in 14.1 with top players.

Most of the best players today don?t play much if any 14.1. But when they do they seem to catch on very quickly and start getting high runs of 100 and 200. I believe if today?s top players played strictly 14.1 that we would see a run of over 200 become very common. 14.1 is mostly a short position game, not going up and down the table like in 9-ball. I agree that 14.1 has less luck in it than 9-ball, but 9-ball is a harder game IMO. Johnnyt

I have to agree with you, but, Part of me doesn't want to.

I had the pleasure of running for a short while with Craig Stevens and he is a legand at 9 ball. At one point I honestly believe he pocketed ball sbetter than any human on the planet. With the old two shot though, it was a different game and more wideo pen. You saw more spectacular shots, but you also saw many backfire much more than today. With the one foul format the game has become much more predictable and more easily perfected.

I furtherly had the pleasure of watching Buddy give Louie the 7 in Shreveport and now 30 years later {app.} it was the most entertaining 9 ball I ever witnessed.

Today's players are a totally different breed than those of 30 years ago. The format has changed and the argument becomes just that an argument.

IMO, if we go back 30 years and the old format, SVB would not have lasted long with Buddy and Wade or even Richie Florence or Ambrose. They would have totally dominated him. His offense is considerably weaker than that of 30 years ago. Todays equipment is so much softer and little or no stroke is required.

I will agree with you though that today, day in and day out, the players are more consistent under the weaker format. IMO!!

 

[rossaroni]

Natural progression, the players of today should be better then the players of yesterday - because they expand and improve on the old knowledge and equipment. The same as in most any other sport.
That is not to take anything away from the older players, if they were born in this age they would've been better. More knowledge, better equipment, you know what I'm saying?

I know what your saying!

 

[av84fun]

I know this has been hashed over on here a lot over the years, but for a couple of years now off and on I?ve been researching the best older players. I myself am 67 years old and grew up in a poolroom and have seen a lot of them. I have always contended that today?s athletes are faster, stronger, and in better shape than the ones of fifty or more years ago.

Anytime I said that about pool a good percentage would disagree with me. After reading about thirty books on pool history, famous players, and books of true pool stories, Then pouring over old tournament results and high runs I?ve come to the conclusion that it?s the same with pool.
There are many more top players now that are capable of winning a major tournament than fifty years ago.

The first thing that most will bring up is Willie Mosconi?s 526 -ball run. I say that was on an 8foot table with bucket pockets. Then they say, ?but he/they played on 10 foot tables.? They played 14.1. There are very few times when they had to make a long shot. The best players only used the two corner pockets by the rack and the two side pockets for probably 99% of their shots. So the 10-foot table doesn?t really come in to play in 14.1 with top players.

Most of the best players today don?t play much if any 14.1. But when they do they seem to catch on very quickly and start getting high runs of 100 and 200. I believe if today?s top players played strictly 14.1 that we would see a run of over 200 become very common. 14.1 is mostly a short position game, not going up and down the table like in 9-ball. I agree that 14.1 has less luck in it than 9-ball, but 9-ball is a harder game IMO. Johnnyt

It will be interesting to see how much heat you take for the above comments but I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure there is any sport ever played that did not witness a measurable evolution of increased skill over long periods of time....ON AVERAGE.

I say "on average" because there are always examples of skills that haven't been matched even after a half century...such as Ted Williams.

Last player to hit at least .400 in a season, hitting .406 in 1941
At 40, oldest batting champ in ML history
Has record for reaching base in most consecutive games (84)

etc.........

But there is little doubt in my mind that a team of the top 10 players of today would defeat the top 10 of 50 years ago...if the match was a combination of 9 ball and 14.1 and if today's players spent half their time for a year or two practicing 14.1.

Of course, there will never be any such match and therefore, the same issue will be debated 50 years from now without any proof of the correct side of the argument. But it is interesting.

Among the reasons I tend to agree with you is that in spite of Willie's 526, as you know from reading so extensively, he ran 125-50 and out only about 10% of the time...and his record was FAR better than most, if not all of his competitors on that statistic.

You are of course, correct that 14.1 was essentially a "half court" game where long "9 ball type" shots were fairly rare but on the other hand, reading racks for imbedded pocketing opportunities and/or to predict the path of balls on cluster break outs so as to maximize the chances of getting a shot is a higly evolved skill...just as is long shot making...and comes up in 14.1 significantly more often than in 9 Ball so there are a lot of elements in the two games that balance out.

Personally, I think that the supposed near absence of luck in 14.1 is overstated but it is also my view that 9 Ball involves quite a bit more luck than 14.1...at least given the 9 Ball rules now in effect that unnecessarily increase the luck factor.

(break from the box...spot the 9...call ball and pocket for no-slop 9
Ball...and OF COURSE, alternate breaks--the absence of which compounds luck on top of luck--and all of a sudden, 9 Ball would have a MUCH lower luck factor and could rival 14.1 on that basis).

Long story...but basically, I tend to agree with you that with a possible exception or two...today's players are superior.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Poolplaya9]

The players today ARE better, and there are many reasons why they should be expected to be better that helps to explain why. There are not any good reasons why they should not be expected to improve.

Nostalgia is a natural human phenominon that clouds peoples judgement and makes them think that whatever particular thing was better "back in the good old days." In forty years, those of us that are still alive will be talking about how "Efren and all those other players from around the turn of the millenium" were better than the players of 2050. We will probably be wrong.

 

[rossaroni]

I agree that the players today overall are playing at a higher level. I don't think it is completely fair to say that they are better today, but like AZE said, every sport evolves and technology gets better. Mosconi, Greenleaf, Worst, Lassiter, etc. would definetely be top players today. However, if I had a time machine(which I am currently working on!), I think a top player today going back would be much better then if a player from the past had to play against the players today. Of course, epuipment is better today, so comparing them is not completely fair, but hey, it is fun to discuss. The only past player who would have dominated today would have to be Fats. He never lost in his day and would probably still be beating all the players today out of their cash!

 

[av84fun]

I have to agree with you, but, Part of me doesn't want to.

I had the pleasure of running for a short while with Craig Stevens and he is a legand at 0 ball. At one point I honestly believe hepcketed ballsbetter than any human on the planet. With the old two shot though, itwas a different game andmorewideopen. You saw morspectacular shots, but you also saw many backfire much more than today. With the one foul format the game hasbecome much more predictable andmore easily perfected.

I furtherly had the pleasure of watching Buddy give Louie the 7 in Shreveport and now 30 years later {app.} it was the most entertaining 9 ball I ever witnessed.

Today's players are a totally different breed than those of 30 years ago. The format has changed and the argument becomes just that an argument.

IMO, if we go back 30 years and the old format, SVB would not have lasted long with Buddy and Wade or even Richie Florence or Ambrose. They would have totally dominated him. His offense is considerably weaker than that of 30 years ago. Todays equipment is so much softer and little or no stroke is required.

I will agree with you though that today, day in and day out, the players are more consistent under the weaker format. IMO!!

I hear ya...but wait...(-:

SVB is only 23 or 24. Willie didn't win his first World Championship until he was 28 and was 41 when he ran 525.

Buddy...who is one of my favs of all time...beat some top guys at Johnston City but I THINK his first win (in tournaments) was in Joe Burns' Dayton events in 1974 at age 28-29.

I have NO CLUE who he might have beaten gambling before then....and I take NOTHING away from him as being one of the all-time greats.

I'm just saying I think we need to give SVB a few more years before the jury comes in on what his skill level might become and before we can start comparing apples to apples.

Regards,
Jim

 

[JoeyInCali]

I think there are MORE very good players today.

 

[ironman]

I hear ya...but wait...(-:

SVB is only 23 or 24. Willie didn't win his first World Championship until he was 28 and was 41 when he ran 525.

Buddy...who is one of my favs of all time...beat some top guys at Johnston City but I THINK his first win (in tournaments) was in Joe Burns' Dayton events in 1974 at age 28-29.

I have NO CLUE who he might have beaten gambling before then....and I take NOTHING away from him as being one of the all-time greats.

I'm just saying I think we need to give SVB a few more years before the jury comes in on what his skill level might become and before we can start comparing apples to apples.

Regards,
Jim

A very good point. Please don't mistake me as I wish SVB all the best and respect his game amd attitude and bahavior even more. Yes, he is young and will improve even more as he matures. I wish him all the best.

Please remember that Buddy was primarily a bar table player until the mid 70's. He was a monster on the bar box and eventually got bored when he ran out of action and then persued the big table.

I may sound argumentative here, but I'm so loyal to that era that these debates are fun to me. Every thing cahnges with time and either we adapt or get passed by.

With all that said, Craig and Louie were the most entertaining I ever saw. If todays players even shot at some of the balls they made, TD"S would be ordering white jackets for them.

 

[deerhunter]

I disagree

For my money Buddy Hall is the best 9 ball player ever, Willie Mosconi best straight pool, Efren Reyes best all round ever and still close to the best all round at 50+, unbelievable. Like him or not but go back to the 80's and Earl Strickland was a shot maker like no one I have ever seen. He could make jump shots with his playing cue that players of today need special equipment to pull off. Plus make tough shot after shot and run out from nowhere, under pressure, all the time. I would watch him play and I would think to myself, does this guy even know how to play 9 ball ?, but he would run out and run out and run out, unreal.
I don't mean to put down players of today but most of the time they play on the same type table and cloth, that makes a big difference. Years ago every where you played was on different equipment.
There is a lot of great players out there today but if you think Buddy Hall, Nick Varner, Earl Strickland, Wimpy, Mosconi and many others couldn't give todays player a run for their money, you are sadly mistaken.
The reason I think Buddy was the best 9 ball player is that he could make the game look like child's play. The only other player I have seen that could come close to making 9 ball look that simple, was Johnny Archer.

 

[av84fun]

A very good point. Please don't mistake me as I wish SVB all the best and respect his game amd attitude and bahavior even more. Yes, he is young and will improve even more as he matures. I wish him all the best.

Please remember that Buddy was primarily a bar table player until the mid 70's. He was a monstoer on the bar box and eventually got bored when he ran out of action and then persued the big table.

I may sound argumentative here, but I'm so loyal to that era that these debates are fun to me. Everythingcahnges withtime andeither we adaptof get passed by.

With all that said, Craig and Louie were the most entertaining I ever saw. If todays playerseven shot at someof the balls they made, TD"S would be ordering white jackets for them.

No, I don't think you're being argumentative at all. You are one of the good guys here and I enjoy your posts very much. I am a history buff big time and LOVE the "back in the day" stories!

The massively underrated Babe Cranfield is one of my heroes. He is credibly reported to have run 768 in front of witnesses but just didn't bother to get an affidavit signed...probably because he could have cared less!

PLEASE keep sharing your insights and personal observations!!

Regards,
Jim

 

[JoeyInCali]

No, I don't think you're being argumentative at all. You are one of the good guys here and I enjoy your posts very much. I am a history buff big time and LOVE the "back in the day" stories!

The massively underrated Babe Cranfield is one of my heroes. He is credibly reported to have run 768 in front of witnesses but just didn't bother to get an affidavit signed...probably because he could have cared less!

PLEASE keep sharing your insights and personal observations!!

Regards,
Jim

768?
He couldn't have cared less?
Was this before or after Mosconi's record?

 

[PoolBum]

I have always contended that today?s athletes are faster, stronger, and in better shape than the ones of fifty or more years ago.

Johnnyt

IMO the question is not, "Are today's athletes faster, stronger, and in better shape than the athletes of yesteryear?" They are. The real question is, "If you took so-and-so from yesteryear and gave them the same advances in training, conditioning, and equipment as today's athletes, how good would they be?"

I believe that a great athlete is a great athlete, regardless of when they came along, and that the greatest athletes from yesteryear would be able to compete with today's athletes. Put Jim Brown in today's NFL and give him all the training and conditioning advances of of today's players and he will still be one of the greatest of all time.

With a sport like pool, where greatness doesn't come from strength, speed, or size, the greatest players of yesteryear (e.g., Greenleaf, Mosconi, Crane) would still be counted among the greatest ever if they were competing in their prime today.

 

[av84fun]

For my money Buddy Hall is the best 9 ball player ever, Willie Mosconi best straight pool, Efren Reyes best all round ever and still close to the best all round at 50+, unbelievable. Like him or not but go back to the 80's and Earl Strickland was a shot maker like no one I have ever seen. He could make jump shots with his playing cue that players of today need special equipment to pull off. Plus make tough shot after shot and run out from nowhere, under pressure, all the time. I would watch him play and I would think to myself, does this guy even know how to play 9 ball ?, but he would run out and run out and run out, unreal.
I don't mean to put down players of today but most of the time they play on the same type table and cloth, that makes a big difference. Years ago every where you played was on different equipment.
There is a lot of great players out there today but if you think Buddy Hall, Nick Varner, Earl Strickland, Wimpy, Mosconi and many others couldn't give todays player a run for their money, you are sadly mistaken.
The reason I think Buddy was the best 9 ball player is that he could make the game look like child's play. The only other player I have seen that could come close to making 9 ball look that simple, was Johnny Archer.

Respectfully, to both you and Buddy, his tournament record...especially wins in "majors" is well surpassed by Earl and Johnny...both of whom are STILL compiling their "lifetime records." (Earl less so but Johnny is STILL one of the greatest players on the planet).

As I mentioned in another post, I think "IN GENERAL" is a required phrase in comparing the top players of today and in the distant past.

Sure the players you mentioned would be champions today but if you took say, the top 20 from any long ago era (1900-30, 1930-60 etc.) compared to the top 20 today and pitted them in some sort of round robin, I think that today's players would prevail.

Finally, as to cloth especially, there is plenty of honest debate on both sides but IHMO the super-fast 860 in use today makes the game more difficult compared to the nappy cloth of years ago.

Position is everything and overrunning shape is much more likely on fast vs. slow cloth. For example, every golfer in the world would much rather put up hill than down because force errors are diminished up hill and magnified down hill.

Another example is Sigel's choice of nappy cloth for the IPT events. Recall, he was a competitor too and NO DOUBT wanted to give himself every possible advantage. (I've heard rumors that it was KT who wanted slow cloth over MS's protests...but I don't believe them).

Please don't misunderstand. I REVERE many of the old days players and know that several of them would be world champions today.

Regards,
Jim

 

[punter]

Respectfully, to both you and Buddy, his tournament record...especially wins in "majors" is well surpassed by Earl and Johnny...both of whom are STILL compiling their "lifetime records." (Earl less so but Johnny is STILL one of the greatest players on the planet).

As I mentioned in another post, I think "IN GENERAL" is a required phrase in comparing the top players of today and in the distant past.

Sure the players you mentioned would be champions today but if you took say, the top 20 from any long ago era (1900-30, 1930-60 etc.) compared to the top 20 today and pitted them in some sort of round robin, I think that today's players would prevail.

Finally, as to cloth especially, there is plenty of honest debate on both sides but IHMO the super-fast 860 in use today makes the game more difficult compared to the nappy cloth of years ago.

Position is everything and overrunning shape is much more likely on fast vs. slow cloth. For example, every golfer in the world would much rather put up hill than down because force errors are diminished up hill and magnified down hill.

Another example is Sigel's choice of nappy cloth for the IPT events. Recall, he was a competitor too and NO DOUBT wanted to give himself every possible advantage. (I've heard rumors that it was KT who wanted slow cloth over MS's protests...but I don't believe them).

Please don't misunderstand. I REVERE many of the old days players and know that several of them would be world champions today.

Regards,
Jim

I don't agree that the fast cloth is harder to play on. You have to 'get the speed down' on any speed cloth you play on. IMO it was harder to play positon, and required more stroke on the slow 'nappy' cloth.

 

[av84fun]

768?
He couldn't have cared less?
Was this before or after Mosconi's record?

I don't recall whether is was before or after but will look it up. And YES...he could have cared less. Babe remained fiercely dedicated to his "amateur" status and I don't believe ever gambled.

In that regard, he was sort of pool's answer to Bobby Jones in golf.

Babe was a successful businessman...in the music industry and didn't care about money or fame. He was a GREAT gentleman and was very active in promoting the sport in exhibitions all over the U.S., often for no charge.

His 768 was in practice but was witnessed by several people of good repute. But if Babe did it alone in his basement and SAID he did it...then he did it.

Fine, it was in practice, but Willie's 526 was in an exhibition and other than the larger audience...what's the difference? Those guy's concentration was so fierce, they could have played in Yankee Stadium and it wouldn't have bothered them.

Regards,
Jim

 

[JoeyInCali]

I don't recall whether is was before or after but will look it up. And YES...he could have cared less. Babe remained fiercely dedicated to his "amateur" status and I don't believe ever gambled.

In that regard, he was sort of pool's answer to Bobby Jones in golf.

Babe was a successful businessman...in the music industry and didn't care about money or fame. He was a GREAT gentleman and was very active in promoting the sport in exhibitions all over the U.S., often for no charge.

His 768 was in practice but was witnessed by several people of good repute. But if Babe did it alone in his basement and SAID he did it...then he did it.

Fine, it was in practice, but Willie's 526 was in an exhibition and other than the larger audience...what's the difference? Those guy's concentration was so fierce, they could have played in Yankee Stadium and it wouldn't have bothered them.

Regards,
Jim

It had to be practice or exhibition.
There was no 600 or over point matches I think.

 

[av84fun]

I don't agree that the fast cloth is harder to play on. You have to 'get the speed down' on any speed cloth you play on. IMO it was harder to play positon, and required more stroke on the slow 'nappy' cloth.

I respect your point of view but for the reasons cited, will stick with mine.

I will just reiterate the uphill/downhill putt analogy. Up hill you can err on the side of too strong and gravity will be your best friend. Opposite on downhill putts.

You should note that the "range of error" on decidedly down hill putts is relatively evenly distributed between leaving them short (babying the putt) vs. running them well past the hole.

Uphill puts are more often left short but are typically missed by a MUCH smaller distance.

For a similar reason (substitute friction for gravity) if you have a long position play on slow cloth, you can "challange" the shot knowing that the cloth will slow the CB down but you can't do that with fast cloth.

An even better analogy would be the stimp meter rating (sometimes "stemp") on greens. Even on flat greens (the better analogy with pool) very high stimp meter ratings strike fear into the hearts of the pros. Conversely, let the rating get down from 11-12 to 7-8 and the pros will drop them in from all over the place...because they challange the distance...know they will get up to the hole...and aren't as afraid of running 6-8 feet by the hole.

SAME with fast vs. slow cloth and for the same reason.

Re: short position plays...much less skill is required in the first place so the "difference between the men and the boys" was on longer position runs.

I know I won't change your opinion and am not trying to...just stating mine.

(-:

Regards,
Jim