Pros today vs the pros yesterday

[maha]

the current generation always thinks their athletes are better than the generation before. that is just the way it has always been.

and mostly right as the equipment gets better each time so the accomplishments are better.

but not sure if the last generation wouldn't be able to do the same.

 

[ShootingArts]

the current generation always thinks their athletes are better than the generation before. that is just the way it has always been.

and mostly right as the equipment gets better each time so the accomplishments are better.

but not sure if the last generation wouldn't be able to do the same.

Man doesn't evolve enough to matter over hundreds of years. Better nutrition and health care makes a difference though. For several generations the average height in the US was growing about .75" to 1.0" a generation. Now that the latest generation comes from parent stock that had much the same advantages the generational height changes have ended or even went backwards slightly.

I think if the older generation pool players came to today they would adapt rapidly and be competitive, they were used to adapting. If today's players could go back 50-75 years they would take a little longer to adapt but most would be competitive back then also. A few might not be flexible enough to adapt.

If Willie Mosconi in his prime could come to today and tour for Brunswick a year I don't think anyone in the world could touch him playing 14.1 afterwards. Not that we don't have great shooters today, but those great shots are often because they have to bail themselves out. You could wait all day and not see Willie make a mistake. His best shots might not be better than today's players but he was more consistent with the bread and butter shots than anyone today I believe.

 

[bbb]

Allen Hopkins has that nasty looking short stroke but as we all know, he did all he needed to with it! Keith's sidearm might sucker a few people in but it doesn't take long for them to learn better.




Pure will to win is a huge factor that can't be rated. Having competed at many things, I have met a double handful of these people who seem to have all the skills to win but never do. They are consistent top five placers locally, even top ten in some big events, but they never get to first place for some reason. I think they just don't see themselves there.

The straightest shooting and one of the smartest pool players I know of was a strong regional player, won at that level, but never won the major events. He certainly had all of the physical skills, I have to think he was lacking something mental or emotional to be one of the best in the world.

Reminds me, I used to watch an old man that age and stamina was forcing to quit short tracking. Before a race he shook like a bird dog crapping peach pits and could burn through a pack of cigarettes in ten minutes. Then he would go out and win the race as often as not. Before a race he was all nerves but it all went away when the green flag dropped!

Hu

the heart of a champion cant be taught
jmho
icbw

 

[Island Drive]

A quote from an up/coming pro tennis player.

"And I think that's what champions are made of," he continued.
"We're not champions because we win. We win because we have certain value systems and certain ways of looking at life. And the way we live our lives."

 

[westcoast]

Great old match from 1992 that accu stats recently put up.

Vintage Earl vs a resurgent Mizerak

 

[westcoast]

perhaps this has been covered before, but why did the Sands tournament stop happening? I've enjoyed all of the matches from the Sands I've watched on You Tube. I really like the long race to 15 format in the finals.

It would be great to see this tournament revived with similar equipment to see how the current pros perform.

 

[ShootingArts]

There is more parity in fields now which is good but on the other side of the coin, who is going to dominate 20-30 years? Who is the next Mosconi, Efren, or Matlock? We had a strong bratpack era when Corey and his contemporaries were young but none had the super staying power of the great champions. Maybe somebody is coming along now or is even here but hasn't had the time to prove themselves a long term monster. Impossible to fairly judge era against era so we judge players against their own era. We can marvel at the guys that play great for a year or two but who among today's players is going to have staying power?

Hu

 

[SEB]

Don't agree. Pattern play consists of managing both the angle and the distance from the object ball.

In fact, the greatest pocketers have almost never been the most precise pattern players for the perfectly good reason that they never needed to be and that, for them, it was not necessarily the best percentage.

The greatest pocketers were always willing to leave a little extra distance to make absolutely sure of the right side of the ball for the next shot. This style has sometimes been called "cinching the angle" and Strickland, Filler and Kaci all play/played that way because, for them, it represents the highest percentage.

Kaci doesn't play the position angles with the precision of Fedor Gorst and is not, on average, getting as close to the next object ball. If somebody asked me whose game, of the two, they should study to learn what almost perfect pattern play looks like, I'll tell them to study Gorst over Kaci.

Yes, Kaci's amazing, but he's not the best pattern player out there. Kaci's approach to running out is very similar to that of Strickland in his prime.

What you describe is the play dichotomy between Jayson Shaw Vs Lee Van Corteza.

Jayson shoots the balls unbelievably straight but his pattern play drives me nutty. It is so bad sometimes. If there was a way to measure cueball travel, i would bet he’s top of the list for the 800+ crowd.

Conversely, watch Lee Van stay in line during a runout…he’s a foot or two away from every ball. Taking easy shot after easy shot time and time again. But then watch him step to the table and try and bury a tough one after an opponent’s miss…it’s laughable sometimes how bad he dogs it. The guy has no power, no stroke, and jabby fundamentals.

Just shows there’s a lot of different ways to develop a winning toolbox in pool.

 

[Island Drive]

Shaw has total feel of ball collisions and movement.
If you ever get a chance, watch the US Open final with he and Kaci.
Lights out, like PT 109 would say, ''swing it''

 

[ShootingArts]

What you describe is the play dichotomy between Jayson Shaw Vs Lee Van Corteza.

Jayson shoots the balls unbelievably straight but his pattern play drives me nutty. It is so bad sometimes. If there was a way to measure cueball travel, i would bet he’s top of the list for the 800+ crowd.

Conversely, watch Lee Van stay in line during a runout…he’s a foot or two away from every ball. Taking easy shot after easy shot time and time again. But then watch him step to the table and try and bury a tough one after an opponent’s miss…it’s laughable sometimes how bad he dogs it. The guy has no power, no stroke, and jabby fundamentals.

Just shows there’s a lot of different ways to develop a winning toolbox in pool.

If we can't or don't come into our position from a favorable angle an inch or two can matter. If my cyphering is correct, the circumference of a pool ball is seven inches. There is many a time when a quarter turn spells disaster, and the slightest difference in position is a fine indication of just how good the guys and gals that stay in line all the time are.

My biggest mistake when I started learning shape was crowding the object ball. Get within six to twelve inches and angles have to be near perfect. Back off to twenty inches give or take and angles are much more forgiving. My game took a huge jump when I started looking at where I wanted the cue ball to finish at rather than the object ball before I settled into a shot. I generally looked at the object ball to pocket it but I had where I wanted the cue ball to finish locked in memory too. By that point I didn't waste time trying to figure out speed, spin, and angles. I looked at what I needed to do and counted on my onboard computer to sort things out.

Hu

 

[pt109]

He came back as Toby Sweet, lol. Just kidding, but Toby could see the edge of the ball better than just about anyone else from that era. He could cut them razor thin. Lee Van is the closest to him around today.

That was a forté of James Christopher also.

 

[ShootingArts]

That was a forté of James Christopher also.

Way back when pool was a nightly thing a particularly sneaky road player came in and scouted me for three nights. After watching me on the table for about fourteen hours total he decided he would prefer talking to playing. That isn't to say he couldn't have beaten me, it was just far from a sure thing.

He gave me a nice compliment, I tried to pass it off as getting the rolls. I got many a laugh out of what he said then. "The first night I thought you were lucky. The second night I still thought it might be luck. Nobody in the world gets as lucky as you do three nights in a row!" One of the few people that busted me with absolute certainty. I am pretty sure it was Tom Ferry, Old Has Been. His health went bad before I got a chance to ask him and his health was a lot more important than our encounter if it was him. Great poster and man that I still miss.

Hu

 

[jason]

I think we need to be careful here. Yes, there are more straight shooters in the game than ever before. Not even guys like Strickland and Lassiter shot straighter than Gorst, Filler, Kaci and Shaw.

On the other hand, although the position paths are a little better today on average than those of the last generation, have we ever seen a better pattern player than Rempe, Hall or Souquet? I'd say no.

I think the old timers played better short position than today's pros by a little (probably because straight pool demanded it), but the pros of today play better long and complex position shots than those of yesterday by a mile. Interestingly enough, the best short position player of these times might well be John Schmidt, whose focus usually lays in the game of straight pool.

The old timers were better defensive payers than those of today, as well. Pool's three best defensive cueists of all time are surely Reyes, Pagulayan and Varner and yet there's no heir apparent to their level of defensive wizardry.

Today's players are better than any we've ever seen, but they are not better in every single area of the game. Give the old-timers their due.

All good points stu. I will argue the quality of the equipment and the invention of the VHS tape has changed the landscape. Some of older fellas know the knowledge just wasn't given for free or a keyboard away like it is today. Knowledge was either earned by gambling, observation or self-taught. My game strategy wasn't taught to me by any pool player, but rather a particular college basketball coach and then reinforced thru my father and baseball. My patterns were based on principles that I developed. I would say my patterns were similar to Buddy Halls in that I wouldn't need to get position if I already had it. It goes back to the KISS principal.

The older players had to play with a lot more inferior equipment than we have today. The cloth, rails, tables, balls, racks have reduced a lot of the variables, so therefore precision has increased. Let's not leave out the low deflection shafts and even gloves. This all increased consistency to a level not possible in the past. If you watch the 90's Efren compared to the 2000's Efren, you will see totally different shot selections and risk taking. We have some amazing shooters today, that is for sure. I think many of the greats would have been at the top today as well. What we should remember are some of the great shots they developed as part of their arsenal in the past. There were some very creative shots that were just part of the game. We have lost some that in the modern game.

IMO, the bottom line is equipment and knowledge are key and talent is rare. Given an equal playing field, the talent will rise and adjust. That's just my 2 cents (2 bit coins for you millennials).

 

[sjm]

All good points stu. I will argue the quality of the equipment and the invention of the VHS tape has changed the landscape. Some of older fellas know the knowledge just wasn't given for free or a keyboard away like it is today. Knowledge was either earned by gambling, observation or self-taught. My game strategy wasn't taught to me by any pool player, but rather a particular college basketball coach and then reinforced thru my father and baseball. My patterns were based on principles that I developed. I would say my patterns were similar to Buddy Halls in that I wouldn't need to get position if I already had it. It goes back to the KISS principal.

The older players had to play with a lot more inferior equipment than we have today. The cloth, rails, tables, balls, racks have reduced a lot of the variables, so therefore precision has increased. Let's not leave out the low deflection shafts and even gloves. This all increased consistency to a level not possible in the past. If you watch the 90's Efren compared to the 2000's Efren, you will see totally different shot selections and risk taking. We have some amazing shooters today, that is for sure. I think many of the greats would have been at the top today as well. What we should remember are some of the great shots they developed as part of their arsenal in the past. There were some very creative shots that were just part of the game. We have lost some that in the modern game.

IMO, the bottom line is equipment and knowledge are key and talent is rare. Given an equal playing field, the talent will rise and adjust. That's just my 2 cents (2 bit coins for you millennials).

Take a deep bow for an exceptional post.

 

[ghost ball]

Different sport but..maybe applicable.

 

[OldOrvis]

Bowlers of today are no better than those from decades ago...but their equipment is head and shoulders better. Today's bowler don't put the ball into the 1-3 pocket any better, but the chemical makeup of their balls help increase pin action. Also, if you really pay attention, you'll see today's bowlers throw more poorly executed shots as a whole compared to yesteryear.

they def dont hit their spot every time Like a Walter Ray or Parker did......they are all over the place and now the 2 handed bowlers are pure gold lol

 

[westcoast]

Different sport but..maybe applicable.

Bird is definitely right- current nba players are immensely talented. However, the criticism goes both ways. For example, JJ Redick made some dumb comments about players from the 1960s- saying they were a bunch of untalented plumbers. Guys like Jerry West rightfully disagreed. Greats from any era need to be respected- they can only compete in their own era and if they excelled they deserve continued compliments

 

[thoffen]

the current generation always thinks their athletes are better than the generation before. that is just the way it has always been.

and mostly right as the equipment gets better each time so the accomplishments are better.

but not sure if the last generation wouldn't be able to do the same.

Objectively speaking, though, this is true (independent of equipment) in many cases.

A lot of time this is due to innovation in approach or psychological barriers being crossed. Efren's kicking game is a prime example in pool how pros learned that their games were incomplete. Increased organization in Europe and Asia have led to more people training for performance and pushing each other to get better. There are more people playing at a high level than in years past.

 

[WardS]

I don't know about this. Regardless of mechanics, IMO Mosconi was one of the most naturally talented athletes ever. I had the good fortune to see him play twice in person, and when he was in rhythm his pool game was poetry. Sure, the game was different, but he dominated 14.1 for many years.

-dj

Mosconi won 15 World Straight Pool Championships, I once saw a copy of a NYC newspaper with headlines “Mosconi World Cue King” he was a celebrity. I wonder how many balls Mosconi would have run if he could have set up camp to start a run miss start over until you reach your number. Not taking away from John or Jason but in last years American 14.1 championship neither of them had the high run. Zelinski 215 and Filler 216 and they both lost.

 

[measureman]

Mosconi won 15 World Straight Pool Championships, I once saw a copy of a NYC newspaper with headlines “Mosconi World Cue King” he was a celebrity. I wonder how many balls Mosconi would have run if he could have set up camp to start a run miss start over until you reach your number. Not taking away from John or Jason but in last years American 14.1 championship neither of them had the high run. Zelinski 215 and Filler 216 and they both lost.

Willie played pool for only one reason and that was to support his family.
If enough money was offered to him to run a 1000 he would have tried and maybe would have done it.