Running balls now vs "the good old days"

[topcat1953]

Running balls now vs "the good old days

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.

Talent runs balls over techniques more times than not.

You can't teach talent. You either have it or not. There is way more talent today than in the past.

There are certainly nuances to look for while playing 14.1, but none of it is a mystery.

One can throw 15 balls out on a table and ask someone to shoot them off and get to a break shot. If they are successful, how can one say, "Oh, well you shoulda shot this then this, etc."? And if they make the break shot and get a shot, but you think they hit it wrong, how can that be if they are still shooting? Then, if they run 100 and they do it all wrong, according to the knowledgable viewer, then, how can it be wrong? It can be said, there is a right way, but there cannot be a wrong way if it gets the job done.

Yes, 14.1 is a teachable game. There are teachable principles for finding and getting to key balls. There are teachable patterns to look for. There are teachable ways to bust the pack open.

But, talent has the instinct to beat those nuances. Talent knows how to keep it going. Talent has balls! Talent has instincts. Talent has willpower. Talent has drive and desire. Talent survives!

With superior cloth, tables, balls, cues, chalk and all, the game has changed and more people play it very, very well than ever before.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[acousticsguru]

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.

Have to agree with this: there weren't only more Straight Pool players around, they also played the game with a regularity in both money games and competition that today's top players couldn't even if they cared to. An indicator of the "average" quality may be ancient/old round-robin tournament statistics I've been shown by collectors in the U.S. - the high runs, averages etc. not just of the handful top players would be scary by modern standards. Needless to say, I have no problems believing that today's pros would play Straight Pool on the same level if not better if they played it with the same regularity - but that's the problem: they don't. The handful Straight Pool enthusiasts whom one might list now to prove my point wrong (Hohmann, Ortmann, Schmidt etc.) - anyone ever wondered if they'd not e.g. break all the old records if only Straight Pool were still the competitive game of choice? But as it things stand, Straight Pool remains kind of a hobby (even if labour of love) even to them.

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

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

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.

Dan, When I was working with Schmidt we did this thing where I would play a few racks but he would tell me what to do. At one point he says "OK, now would be a good time to go into that 7-13 that are tied up but WHATEVER YOU DO, do NOT hit the 3 ball! I'd rather you miss the 7-13 and we can deal with it later than have you run into the 3 ball." He was so adamant about it I asked him why. He said if I run into the 3 there is a good chance I will be left with no shot. I looked at it and he was absolutely right. Of course he saw the trap right away and I didn't see it at all. These types of situations came up numerous times during the exercise where he would want me to go into balls a certain way, for example.

He further explained there are often situations during a run that are lower percentage. Doesn't mean you won't have a shot this time or even the next, but somewhere along the way if you keep choosing the lower percentage plays it will bite you. You don't get the big runs without keeping those lower percentage plays to a minimum.

I guess what I'm saying is if the top players are at all like him, they are very aware of what's happening when they go into balls. Very. The top players today (at the highest level), even with perhaps a different style, are still doing it with knowledge.

 

[michael4]

I am not an expert in pool or in 14.1, but respectfully here are more of my random thoughts….

1. In the old days all the best players concentrated on 14.1. Today many do not, but if they did, the current level of 14.1 play would be much better than it is. Advantage current players.
2. No dispute that more information is available now then ever before. In the old days you might have to practice for a year to discover some new shots or concepts. Now you can find this same info on Google in minutes. Advantage current players.
3. It has been argued that some things the old masters knew have been “lost” or at least that the new players don’t know it. It doesn’t make sense that something the masters figured out could not be figured out by today’s players. There has been no loss of IQ in the world. If an old Master took 5 years to learn something special, surely the new player could dedicate the same 5 years (if he wanted to) and learn the same things. I believe a better argument is some skills the masters had have been lost simply because its not needed anymore. Analogy: soldiers of the past may have been the best “musket loaders” you have ever seen, they had musket loading skills, knowledge and finesse far beyond what modern soldiers have (who just load a magazine and blast their AK47). The real difference being the modern soldier doesn’t HAVE TO use or learn the older musket loading techniques because times have changed (but he could if he had to).

 

[Rico]

One of the greatest pool stories is Johnson City 14.1 Dallas West playing Ronnie Allen and referee calling the patterns.I agree talent will get you there but breaking balls out correctly and patterns that keep you in line breeds consistency .Many times you see 8-ball players get out with a ? pattern but it catches up in the long run.

 

[sjm]

I am not an expert in pool or in 14.1, but respectfully here are more of my random thoughts….

1. In the old days all the best players concentrated on 14.1. Today many do not, but if they did, the current level of 14.1 play would be much better than it is. Advantage current players.
2. No dispute that more information is available now then ever before. In the old days you might have to practice for a year to discover some new shots or concepts. Now you can find this same info on Google in minutes. Advantage current players.
3. It has been argued that some things the old masters knew have been “lost” or at least that the new players don’t know it. It doesn’t make sense that something the masters figured out could not be figured out by today’s players. There has been no loss of IQ in the world. If an old Master took 5 years to learn something special, surely the new player could dedicate the same 5 years (if he wanted to) and learn the same things. I believe a better argument is some skills the masters had have been lost simply because its not needed anymore. Analogy: soldiers of the past may have been the best “musket loaders” you have ever seen, they had musket loading skills, knowledge and finesse far beyond what modern soldiers have (who just load a magazine and blast their AK47). The real difference being the modern soldier doesn’t HAVE TO use or learn the older musket loading techniques because times have changed (but he could if he had to).

The game of 14.1 is probably played about 1% as often as thirty years ago. The amount of new written material about 14.1 in the past thirty years is minimal, and given how few 14.1 competitions there are today, the top players, (excepting those with access to old masters such as Sigel, Hopkins, Varner, Rempe, Martin, West, Lane, Butera, Barouty, DiLiberto, and a few others) have only limited opportunity to pick up knowledge of the game's finer points.

The game requires, more or less, the same skills that it always has, with the exception that break shots starting or during the rack need not be struck as firmly with the better balls, rails and cloth that modern players enjoy. The game still consists of the three basic phases of the rack: a) opening it up, b) clearing the path of all balls to a pocket in as risk-free a manner as possible, and c) skillful end pattern selection and execution to minimize the amount of position that must be played and to maximize the chance of leaving a good break shot.

I find the argument that a significant number of the skills of the old masters are obsolete to be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Lonestar_jim]

Splittin hairs ?

The game of 14.1 is probably played about 1% as often as thirty years ago. The amount of new written material about 14.1 in the past thirty years is minimal, and given how few 14.1 competitions there are today, the top players, (excepting those with access to old masters such as Sigel, Hopkins, Martin, West, Lane, Butera, Barouty, DiLiberto, and a few others) have only limited opportunity to pick up knowledge of the game's finer points.

The game requires, more or less, the same skills that it always has, with the exception that break shots starting or during the rack need not be struck as firmly with the better balls, rails and cloth that modern players enjoy. The game still consists of the three basic phases of the rack: a) opening it up, b) clearing the path of all balls to a pocket in as risk-free a manner as possible, and c) skillful end pattern selection and execution to minimize the amount of position that must be played and to maximize the chance of leaving a good break shot.

I find the argument that a significant number of the skills of the old masters are obsolete to be absolutely ridiculous.

Michael4 stated that some skills have been lost. This may translate to "finer points", he will have to clarify. sjm I like what you say in general.

Michael4, let me address some of your statements. What advantage are you speaking of that goes to the modern player ? That they are able to take shortcuts endowed to a culture having access to the internet or that if they played the game as much now as the old school then the modern player will win against the other ? PLease answer.

Also, how can you say that I.Q. has not diminished ? More to the point how does I.Q. impact pocket billiards ? Some of the top talent have not gotten where they are by reading tutorials or having an adequate understanding of physics.

I have enjoyed this thread. Thanks to all who have posted !

 

[michael4]

Michael4 stated that some skills have been lost. This may translate to "finer points.
What advantage are you speaking of that goes to the modern player ? That they are able to take shortcuts endowed to a culture having access to the internet or that if they played the game as much now as the old school then the modern player will win against the other ?
how can you say that I.Q. has not diminished ? how does I.Q. impact pocket billiards ?
I have enjoyed this thread. Thanks to all who have posted !

I enjoy this thread too, and I know less about 14.1 than most here, so my comments are perhaps "hypotheticals" and I welcome the experts to correct me.

(Yes, "finer points" is better.)

To me, this thread was about the evolution of the game, and also about the differences between the older vs. newer players, and their style of play. I guess I'm saying the new players "should" be better due to more info available, and if they are not maybe its because they dont concentrate on this game. However, my final conclusion is that both the old and new players have the exact same "potential" and any difference is due to conditions that existed at the time. In other words, if Mosconi played today, (I suggest) he would play like the modern players!, because that is the current state of the art. If today's best players played in the past, they would play like Mosconi (etc), because that was the state of the art back then.
I only mentioned IQ as another example that there is no difference between old & new players. In case anyone thought the new players were not smart enough or too lazy to delicately pick apart a rack. (it does take a reasonable amount of intelligence to play great 14.1, but you dont have to be a rocket scientist)

 

[michael4]

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:

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."

OR, Dan’s thread could be about......."why do today's players just blast open racks and take the risk of being stuck, when they have the ability (or should have) to pick apart the rack more safely?"

I humbly suggest, nothing is 100% safe, lets say the old masters could pick apart the rack with a 90% success rate (or 10% failure rate). They also knew that blasting the rack (on old equipment) had a 15% failure rate, so they would of course choose to pick the rack.

On today’s equipments, blasting the rack still has risk, but say its only a 5% failure rate, compared to the 10% failure rate of picking the rack, so naturally the new player should blast.

just rambling.....slow work day

Edit, maybe its not just equipment, but 9 ball play, etc, and maybe considering all these things, smash and grab IS the smart, or high percentage, play ?

 

[Dan White]

I humbly suggest, nothing is 100% safe, lets say the old masters could pick apart the rack with a 90% success rate (or 10% failure rate).

I don't think I agree with your premise. I'm talking about opening clusters rather than "breaking" them. I'm talking about getting through an entire rack without having relied on an educated guess or pure luck to get you through (except maybe the break shot).

Picking apart the rack, IMO, does not increase your chances of failure. What may seem difficult to someone watching a rack being picked apart may be as simple as shooting ducks to the person playing. 9 ballers tend to focus on shot-making ability. An easy shot in that game would be a straight in 2 foot shot. In straight pool, position play ability is more important. So the analogy of the 2 foot 9 ball shot in straight pool is a short cue ball position play where you nudge two balls apart while playing position on a safety ball.

The kind of controlled play I'm talking about does not increase your chances of failure. In my mind, it assures your chances of continuing your run while the "educated guess" type shots tend to end your run sooner rather than later.

 

[Chip Roberson]

A passing thought

Some of this brought back to mind an old story--UJ Pucket had sobered up for 30 days, was in top shape and fell upon Mr Mosconi.. they were playing one pocket for good money, Puckett busted, called his backer for more dough his backer told him to pull up he couldn't win---Puckett then states that he can win--his opponent is running out all wrong----he's running OUT all wrong