Running balls now vs "the good old days"

[Dan White]

I'm watching some of these current videos Dennis (thanks Dennis) posts up, and some others where there are runs 100 plus in many cases. I'm not an old timer and I haven't watched a lot of video from play in straight pool's hey-day, (not that there is much around) so I'm more asking a question than anything.

In watching today's videos it looks look a "smash and grab job" to quote from the movie Ocean's 11. Even with guys like John Schmidt, it looks like they are blasting the balls open on the break and then doing the same with any remaining clusters, taking some chances all the while. Some questions come to mind:

1. With such fast cloth, why blast balls everywhere and risk losing the cue ball? Why not take advantage of fast cloth and move the balls apart 12 to 24 inches rather than 2 to 6 feet?

2. Did the "old masters" really often pick the racks apart or is that a myth? I know when Mosconi broke them open they pretty much stayed at the bottom half of the table. (Slow cloth causing this?)

3. Is this "smash and grab" style a product of the money table at Derby City? In other words, if you want the highest possible run for any given try, keep smashing them open and hope you don't get left bad? If you open everything up and snooker yourself in competition at this level you may never get back to the table.

Maybe I'm making something out of nothing, I dunno. It just doesn't look like straight pool. I should finish by saying that in no way am I criticizing what I'm seeing -- I'm in no position to tell any of these guys they're doing it "wrong."

It would be really interesting if John Schmidt or someone from the Derby City challenge had a reply.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Dan, you'd be amazed at how much is going on in John's head when he plays straight pool. I took a 3 hour lesson from him last week and though that barely scratched the surface of what he knows, he's not just relying on shot making to keep it going, trust me on that. He really understands how to play patterns, open lanes, deal with problem balls, avoid getting trapped, moving balls when necessary and at the right time...yada yada.

Watching video of him it is pretty clear that he does prefer to hit the break shot hard. But going through the rack he is more about pocket speed. If he hits a shot hard you can be sure he has a reason.

It does seem though that the old legends did tend to play more at the foot end of the table and looked at any ball up table more as a problem. At the same time it seems that guys today are more OK spreading the balls all over the place. Perhaps its because most of today's players have a lot of experience in 9 and 10 Ball and are way more used to working the cue ball all over to run a rack. Certainly if you are willing to let balls go all over you probably end up with a better spread and less clusters, so maybe that's the trade-off today's players are willing to make.

You will see a more aggressive approach in a DCC style straight pool challenge during the run attempts than you will see during the competitive matches, for the obvious reasons.

 

[sjm]

Adapted from a post of mine in another thread.....

Though this may appear to be a matter of playing philosophy, I think a lot of the debate comes down to the kind of cloth in use.

On the old, nappy cloth, the balls just didn't spread very well on the breakshot. This was also partly atributable to the fact that the balls of today are of much higher quality than those of yesteryear. This left a player with two ways to go, 1) hit the break shot very hard, accepting that there will be a few more missed break shots and a few more scratches, but spreading the balls very well, 2) hit the break shot at a speed where you were fairly certain of pocketing the ball and avoiding a scratch. Back in the day, this meant that even after your break shot, there might be a little more work to do to run out the table, but the great ones were usually up to the task. The undisputed king of Approach 1 was Luther Lassiter, but, as we know, he may have been the greatest ball pocketer in pool history. As Dallas West has corrrectly observed, most players were stuck with Approach 2, and some of the purists believed that most players that used Approach 1 would have been better off with Approach 2.

Today, even if the break shot is cinched, the fast cloth and the use of centennial or aramith balls usually casues the balls to spread reasonably well, so the gap between Approach 1 and Approach 2 has narrowed greatly, and the great straight poolers of today have clearly demonstrated that you can be very successful with either approach.

In conclusion, I think the debate is almost moot on Simonis 860 cloth for top players.

 

[LApoolbum]

Hi Dan,
Another great thread. I was also taught the old school minimal energy and displacement sort of game along with many of the "truths" such as avoiding bank shots and combinations as much as possible etc.

Video has truly revolutionized pool simply because these "truths" can now be observed and I have been surprised at how many "truths" don't seem to be true, and in the games of top players no less!

The prevalence of the open break over the close break is one example. My personal opinion is that it has more to do with the table size changing from 5x10 to 4.5x9 than with the difference in clothes. One wanted the balls to not roll to far from the rack so that they would become secondary break shots. When a ball on a 5x10 with slow cloth rolled away from the stack it rolled back into the vicinity of the rack far less often than on a 4.5x9 with fast cloth and let's face it, in 14p1 we want balls in that 4-5 ball wide perimeter around the rack area.
As a kid in the 60's I played on some real rugs, it sure wasn't simonis, and I think most of us understand that the equipment today is superior to that of the 40's and 50's but even then most of us probably still underestimate how much difference there was.

Another example of truth busting is how often short( < 2 ball diameters) combinations along the rail get played instead of trying to break up the balls. I was taught to avoid these like the plague even though it felt natural to play them in certain situations.

Marop or someone else posted the 100+ run statistics from the DCC and there is nor arguing with John Schmidt's numbers, he can run balls so he is one to watch.

I remember Phil Capelle's observation that when five top players are presented with the same open table one may well see four or five different patterns to get out, the rich variety in 14p1 can't be overstated. The old school short game approach will always have it's place but I think the open break is here to stay.

Cheers.

 

[Dan White]

Thanks for the interesting points made above. I think the cloth, balls and so on do make a big difference -- it just makes sense. I should restate that I am in no way thinking that Schmidt isn't fully aware of everything going on at the table. I'm also quite sure the cue ball is going pretty close to exactly where he wants it most of the time.

There's still something irking me that will take some thought about how to express correctly. Maybe another thread is the best way to bring it up....

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Thanks for the interesting points made above. I think the cloth, balls and so on do make a big difference -- it just makes sense. I should restate that I am in no way thinking that Schmidt isn't fully aware of everything going on at the table. I'm also quite sure the cue ball is going pretty close to exactly where he wants it most of the time.

There's still something irking me that will take some thought about how to express correctly. Maybe another thread is the best way to bring it up....

I didn't mean to suggest that you were thinking that. Actually, I believe I understand your point . I was watching some the DVD of Engert in the 2006 World Championships and was thinking that him and other of today's players seem to have to come with a a difficult every now and again to keep a run going, whereas it seems like in the old days the masters would run 100+ like it was nothing - all easy shots. So it got me wondering if today's players just aren't as adept as the old timers in the nuance and rely on their great shot making to get them out of trouble.

But I really don't think that's the case among today's top 14.1 players. As we know, crap happens in straight pool and sometimes you simply have to dig down and come with a shot. I think also sometimes our memories of the "golden years" of 14.1 may be a little romantic. I'm sure those guys would have to come up with a shot too now and then.

But I do think the style is a little different than back then partly because of the equipment but also due to the fact that today's players have much more experience in 9 and 10 Ball, playing the whole table, and going up and back. So they are more comfortable incorporating some of the aspects of those games into their straight pool style. The guys from around Mosconi's time played almost all 14.1 and much less 9 Ball.

I see this sometimes when I watch how today's players play position. Say you have two balls a foot apart in the area about a diamond up and a diamond out from a corner pocket. A guy like Crane would would be comfortable shooting a soft shot on the first one, roll the CB a couple of inches and leave himself an easy straight in shot on the second ball to the up table corner pocket on that side. Today's player would probably hit it harder, spin the CB off the rail and around the 2nd ball to shoot it in the same corner as the first ball. This example incorporates both aspects that I see are different. Today's players are more cautious about playing a long shot to an up table corner pocket on a deep shelf 4.5" Diamond than the old masters were playing to a 5" bucket with less shelf. Further, with so much 9 and 10 Ball competition today's players are more comfortable with hitting that first shot harder, using spin off the rail and moving the CB further to get shape on the 2nd ball.

 

[michael4]

There's still something irking me that will take some thought about how to express correctly. Maybe another thread is the best way to bring it up....

Dan, if you dont mind, let me take a stab about what might be on your mind. Your orig post has some telling language, such as "good old days" v "smash & grab" etc. Not a big leap to assume you appreciate the "old style" better, or the style that favors short precision play.

Regarding taking chances, one could argue that the old style also is taking chances, just different types of chances? I can only think of a football analogy here: Sure the 30 yard pass play is taking chances, but so is the more conservative run up the middle (the chance of only getting one yard).

I think you (like myself and many) may prefer finesse over brute power, brain over muscle, quality over quantity, art over function. Maybe you think todays players are somehow "cheating" by getting away with the smash & grab, or that they are playing a different game entirely, or that the game has evolved in a way that is less cerebral, less classy?

Again, not trying to put words in your mouth, as the above are mostly my thoughts, inspired from your orig post.......

 

[Marop]

I didn't mean to suggest that you were thinking that. Actually, I believe I understand your point . I was watching some the DVD of Engert in the 2006 World Championships and was thinking that him and other of today's players seem to have to come with a a difficult every now and again to keep a run going, whereas it seems like in the old days the masters would run 100+ like it was nothing - all easy shots. So it got me wondering if today's players just aren't as adept as the old timers in the nuance and rely on their great shot making to get them out of trouble.

But I really don't think that's the case among today's top 14.1 players. As we know, crap happens in straight pool and sometimes you simply have to dig down and come with a shot. I think also sometimes our memories of the "golden years" of 14.1 may be a little romantic. I'm sure those guys would have to come up with a shot too now and then.

But I do think the style is a little different than back then partly because of the equipment but also due to the fact that today's players have much more experience in 9 and 10 Ball, playing the whole table, and going up and back. So they are more comfortable incorporating some of the aspects of those games into their straight pool style. The guys from around Mosconi's time played almost all 14.1 and much less 9 Ball.

I see this sometimes when I watch how today's players play position. Say you have two balls a foot apart in the area about a diamond up and a diamond out from a corner pocket. A guy like Crane would would be comfortable shooting a soft shot on the first one, roll the CB a couple of inches and leave himself an easy straight in shot on the second ball to the up table corner pocket on that side. Today's player would probably hit it harder, spin the CB off the rail and around the 2nd ball to shoot it in the same corner as the first ball. This example incorporates both aspects that I see are different. Today's players are more cautious about playing a long shot to an up table corner pocket on a deep shelf 4.5" Diamond than the old masters were playing to a 5" bucket with less shelf. Further, with so much 9 and 10 Ball competition today's players are more comfortable with hitting that first shot harder, using spin off the rail and moving the CB further to get shape on the 2nd ball.

This post is spot on in so many ways. Good job.

 

[sjm]

But I do think the style is a little different than back then partly because of the equipment but also due to the fact that today's players have much more experience in 9 and 10 Ball, playing the whole table, and going up and back. So they are more comfortable incorporating some of the aspects of those games into their straight pool style. The guys from around Mosconi's time played almost all 14.1 and much less 9 Ball.

I think you've hit on something here, but I'm inclined to reject some of this argument.

There is little doubt that the players of today, just as you suggest, have a greater comfort level with certain types of shots than the players of yesteryear, and that some of the choices the players of today make reflect it. I would also suggest that there are more great pocketers today than ever before. No doubt, guys like Mosconi, Caras, Crane, Sigel, Varner, Rempe, Balsis, Mizerak, West, Martin, et. al., pocketed as well as even the best of today, and only Lassiter pocketed better than those guys. Today, there are probably 100 guys in the world who pocket balls comparably to all the old masters other than Lassiter.

Still, I feel pattern play mattered more in the good old days because the slow cloth and poorer quality balls required that the break shot be hit harder. This made it far more critical to get really tight shape on the break shot than is the case today. In the good old days, only the great pattern players got consistently tight onto the break shot, and, far more runs ended when a player got only so-so shape on a break shot. If the shot was cinched, the pack wouldn't always break, and if the extra speed was chanced, there were more misses and more scratches back then than today. I've attended most of the world straight pool championships since 1976 and can eyewitness that the best of yesteryear tended to be a little tighter on the break shot than the best players today.

I do not agree that the players of yesteryear took risks that the players of today do not take. I believe that the old cloth and the old balls changed the percentages and the play of the old masters, possibly excepting Lassiter, reflected the best approach to risk management for those conditions. I think similar credit should go to the players of today. Simonis 860 with Centennial or Aramith balls calls for a slightly different approach because the percentages are different. My inclination is to give full credit to the superstars of both generations for understanding how to manage the table on the equipment on which they competed.

Still, there is much truth in your post. Stylistically, the game has changed, and some of that change reflects the nine ball backgrounds of many of those who play straight pool. Some of the patterns that players of today execute routinely were not as automatic for the old masters.

Thanks for an interesting and well-considered post.

 

[lfigueroa]

But I do think the style is a little different than back then partly because of the equipment but also due to the fact that today's players have much more experience in 9 and 10 Ball, playing the whole table, and going up and back. So they are more comfortable incorporating some of the aspects of those games into their straight pool style. The guys from around Mosconi's time played almost all 14.1 and much less 9 Ball.

I see this sometimes when I watch how today's players play position. Say you have two balls a foot apart in the area about a diamond up and a diamond out from a corner pocket. A guy like Crane would would be comfortable shooting a soft shot on the first one, roll the CB a couple of inches and leave himself an easy straight in shot on the second ball to the up table corner pocket on that side. Today's player would probably hit it harder, spin the CB off the rail and around the 2nd ball to shoot it in the same corner as the first ball. This example incorporates both aspects that I see are different. Today's players are more cautious about playing a long shot to an up table corner pocket on a deep shelf 4.5" Diamond than the old masters were playing to a 5" bucket with less shelf. Further, with so much 9 and 10 Ball competition today's players are more comfortable with hitting that first shot harder, using spin off the rail and moving the CB further to get shape on the 2nd ball.

I'd have to buy into this.

In the old days guys delved more deeply into the nuances of 14.1 because that's all they played and they came to master the "small game" within the game. The 14.1 players of old were like the ancient martial arts masters who could take down or immobilize a bigger, stronger, younger opponent with just a small, graceful, but paralyzing movement. I think they were several levels further down into the game and so were more comfortable with the small almost imperceptible cue ball movements that lead to easy shots and reliable angles to the next. And so, as in Dog's example, they were more comfortable creating shots without going to a rail and just floated the cue ball to and fro.

Lou Figueroa
it's too early to think this out more
I need another espresso

 

[acousticsguru]

I've been playing for 26 years now, and the way I remember the "picking apart" of the rack on woolen cloth (and that includes the first couple of times I visited the U.S. in the late eighties), it was a necessity. Don't get me wrong, I loved those cloths, in fact, given I worked hard to develop a good stroke, feel somewhat cheated that today, people seem to merely poke at the cue ball with hollow LD shafts anymore (Oops! Ranting… Sorry!). The way I remember it, it didn't much matter beyond a certain speed if one hit the break shots any firmer: all this did was to diminish cue ball control, whereas it seemed impossible to open the rack more than with a nice firm speed and good action on the cue ball. Those times are the reason I still like backwards cuts (cue ball at least half a ball closer to the rail than the break ball) with follow, although the cue ball tends to glance off the stack on modern slippery cloth rather than hook forward and hit the rack multiple times. All in all, it was different. I loved it. Cue deflection didn't seem to matter much, cloths offered great grip, so one could exert all the precision and control one wanted, and it didn't even occur to me that they were "slow". Jim Rempe once said that the day players were asked if they wanted 760 (he probably meant: on the Pro Tour), all the weaker players were in favour, and all the guys who could really shoot just plain hated the idea. Exactomundo!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[topcat1953]

Just my two cents worth, but I believe there are more good players today than in the so called "Hey-day". There are more 100 ball runners now than in any other time of the sport. There is more education, more books, more talent. Equiptment is better and the list goes on. The European influence spreads the balls open early and the style is a good one to follow. It seems to lead to more alternatives for safety valves and open shooting. If you have not watched the video of Appleton's big run, you're in for a treat if you do. Or watch any of the Ortman runs. They don't fool around with that break shot like the old guys did. Compare their runs to Crane's 150 out. See if you notice a difference in approach.
Knowledge is the key and there is more knowledge today than 50 years ago, so I'd say the game is played better than in the "Hey-day" times.

14.1, it's a passion.

 

[mosconiac]

If there is a "new style", it must be working. Of those that have run over 400, there are 9 "old-schoolers" and 6 "new-schoolers".

Pick yer poisin, slower cloth & 4.75-5" pockets--or--faster cloth & 4.25-4.5" pockets.

 

[michael4]

Knowledge is the key and there is more knowledge today than 50 years ago, so I'd say the game is played better than in the "Hey-day" times.
.

When I think about it, there is not one sport I can think of that was played better in the past than it is today, maybe different, but not better.

 

[sjm]

There are more 100 ball runners now than in any other time of the sport.

This couldn't be further from the truth. When straight pool was the main game played, there were probably ten times as many hundred ball runners as today.

In addition, the new generation of players does not have a knowledge edge of any kind over the old masters, most of whose techniques and styles were never documented. So many of these techniques and styles are completely forgotten.

 

[Rico]

I remember going into poll halls like in Racine to get a sailor cue and being amazed at the kids board 25 50 75 100 ball run club . Then the board for 100 125 150 runs. That was one place .Then in my town in Ia. THE owner his father inlaw had MOSCONI COME IN They could all run 100. In Dubueqe were Scott Kittoe was from several 100-150 ball runners. The past had many many good 14.1 players and alot of greats. PS if LOUIE ROBERTS PLAYED 14.1 i dont know what he would of done but he was as good ashotmaker as any one including Luther L.

 

[Dan White]

although the cue ball tends to glance off the stack on modern slippery cloth rather than hook forward and hit the rack multiple times.

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose this is something you probably wouldn't pick up on unless you played at a high level on those older cloths.

 

[Dan White]

When I think about it, there is not one sport I can think of that was played better in the past than it is today, maybe different, but not better.

Baseball used to be the only real game in America for a long time, and there were far fewer teams. I think the argument is often made that the average player had more skill back then than now, especially the pitching. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but I know this is a popular argument.

 

[Dan White]

Dan, if you dont mind, let me take a stab about what might be on your mind. Your orig post has some telling language, such as "good old days" v "smash & grab" etc. Not a big leap to assume you appreciate the "old style" better, or the style that favors short precision play.

Regarding taking chances, one could argue that the old style also is taking chances, just different types of chances? I can only think of a football analogy here: Sure the 30 yard pass play is taking chances, but so is the more conservative run up the middle (the chance of only getting one yard).

I think you (like myself and many) may prefer finesse over brute power, brain over muscle, quality over quantity, art over function. Maybe you think todays players are somehow "cheating" by getting away with the smash & grab, or that they are playing a different game entirely, or that the game has evolved in a way that is less cerebral, less classy?

Again, not trying to put words in your mouth, as the above are mostly my thoughts, inspired from your orig post.......

I agree with your general interpretation of what I was saying. However, it is even more specific than that. For example, here's kind of where I'm coming from on breaking open clusters: My home table has 860 Simonis cloth but needs to be restretched, and plays a little slow (maybe a lot slow). I have had many runs where the only mistake I make is opening up a cluster without being sure what my next shot is. I'm reasonably good at not snookering myself badly when opening clusters, but there are still plenty of times when going into a cluster ends my run. I see players on fast cloth do seemingly the same thing and get away with it over and over. Either they are more aware of whats happening when they break a cluster than I realize, or they just happen to get good rolls with educated cluster opening (hence getting the long run). I KNOW some top players go into clusters and think "if I break that cluster something will have to be left for me to shoot at." With their ability with precision, why not instead think, "if I go into the top of the 1 ball the 5 will pop out to the bottom rail and the 10 will go to the side rail, and the cue ball will be in the clear over there. I'll have a shot on probably the 5 and if not I've still got the 6 as a safety ball near the side pocket."? I know top players have the skill to play that way, and it seems obvious that removing unknowns is the best way to assure high runs. Yet, it seems the preferred method is to blast through loose clusters and see what you get.

In a nutshell, why do they choose to take a greater chance than necessary? I know there are times when you can't plot out ball paths with good certainty when going into a cluster, but I think many times you can.

Well, I guess I'm still trying to think this through.

 

[acousticsguru]

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose this is something you probably wouldn't pick up on unless you played at a high level on those older cloths.

"The older we get, the better we used to be."

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti