Scott Frost vs The So Called One Pocket Greats

[MahnaMahna]

I am not a big 1pkt player (yet), but love the game.

How much has the game changed in the last 10-20-30-40-50 years? Pocket sizes, strategy, etc.

Seems some of the 9 ball players 20 or more years ago would have a harder time today because of the evolution of the game.

Wonder about the comparison and evolution of 1pkt.

Scott is a great player, but I would agree with most of you before me, to say he is better than even half the list is pretty out there.

 

[donny mills]

Scott plays one pocket better now than he did ten years ago. I think Scott is stealing except for efren. What's really sick is how efren gave cliff 9 7 when cliff played great. I'm shocked that everyone feels that scott is an underdog to these guys. I've watched a lot of these players play one pocket.

 

[watchez]

i dont think this is a fair poll since alot of the knowledge that frost has is the end result of stuff that was done by many of these greats.

i am not looking to knock scott down, cause he shoots a great game, just trying point out the obvious.

along with what i said, i dont think that scott would fair too well with all of these greats in thier prime.

Steve

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Celtic]

I've watched a lot of these players play one pocket.

Your way too young to have watched most of those players play 1-pocket anywhere near their prime. So am I. Watching a guy play 30 years + past his prime and assuming that is a fair estimate of how he played at his peak is ludicrous.

For what it is worth I like Jeremy Jones against Scott Frost in a long set. Or Daulton.

Even today with hardly anyone putting a considerable amount of effort into the game compared to the days when ALOT of people played 1-pocket Scott is not the best, although he might put more effort into that particular game then the rest of the guys at this point.

Ronnie Allen, Grady, Varner, these guys were monsters when they actually played the game seriously and a huge number of other players were putting alot more effort into the game.

1-pocket is becomming alot more like straight pool every day, it is a game that is not played by the majority of players in the world and the few people who focus on it and become the best are helped out by the fact that there is not alot of people trying to actually get there anymore. When Ronnie Allen was the best 1-pocket player on the planet there were ALOT of people trying to be that guy.

You can count the number of serious 1-pocket players in the world who have both the talent and put the amount of commitment and practice into the game to be great such as was once done on one hand. The 1-pocket scene of the early 1980's was WAY more competitive then it is today.

Specializing in a game that very few people commit a considerable amount of time or attention into and becomming the best at it is not quite the same as becomming the best at a game where alot more people are putting that effort and time into being the best at.

ATM being the best 1-pocket player in the world is a niche with little competition, being the best 10-ball player in the world? That puts you above a world of people all gunning at that position and means ALOT more. Keep in mind, When Allen, Grady, Sigel, ect... were THAT good at 1-pocket relative to the rest of the world, there was ALOT more competition trying to be that guy.

If the game was played anything like it was in the past Scott would not be close. A guy who played phenomenal 1-pocket for the amount of time he put into the game was Alex Pagulayan. If Alex actually put in a considerable amount of time into 1-pocket and lived in an era with competition and a reason to get great at that game he would be a monster and Scott would not be knocking on his door. Jones was a great 1-pocket player with loads of potential, so was Daulton, these guys all have a huge amount of natural talent and simply did not put in the effort into getting great at the game because there was no point.

 

[BRKNRUN]

Sorry, but there a lot of guys on that list that I would rate over Scott Frost. In fact, most of them! Bugs, Taylor, Ronnie, Efren, Rags, Cookie, Marvin. C'MON, these guys were great players! These are not shortstops here. Kelly, Shorty, Cooney, Jersey Red, Cornbread! PLEASE. If Scott Frost got a steady diet of these players, he would have to find a new job.

I'd like to see Grady chime in here since he played so many of the above guys, and held his own. And he's seen Scott play. In their prime Sigel and Mizerak would have chewed him up too. Probably Hopkins and maybe Rempe, Varner and Fusco as well. Scott has a huge offense but the guys I listed were just better pool players.

I remember when Mark Tadd was running all over everybody in L.A., firing in balls from everywhere and running out. He ran into Steve Cook in the finals and it was a whole different story. Steve out moved and out shot Mark in every aspect of the game. He totally shut down Mark's big offense. To play truly great One Pocket takes a complete player, who can handle whitey and knows when to shoot and when to duck. Scott ain't there yet.

P.S. Ask Scott how he came out with a 60+ Ervolino in Vegas about ten years ago. The best One Pocket players of this current generation IMO are Shannon and Gabe. Joyner was a better player too before his shoulder went out.

There is the real question.....Frankly Scott is on a Junk Food diet.....There are some really decent one pocket players in the Vally O the Sun....and Scott Drills them all in the long run......However.....It is like eating cake and drinking milkshakes all day.....Espcially in one pocket where shot selection is probably at minimum on par with shotmaking.....I doubt many of his local opponents know all the right shots....many of the immediate shots yes.....but key moves and traps...no....Giving up 10-6 to someone that knows barly more than zero strategy and probably looks 0 shots ahead can't be as hard as playing a HOFer that knows ALL the moves and traps 8-8....that can usually predict the next 2 or three innings.

IF he had a steady diet of really good players like the HOF players....I wonder just how good he could be.

I would suspect his game would jump a few levels at least if he played those guys all the time.

 

[LAMas]

How about Jose Parica?

http://www.onepocket.org/fame.htm

 

[Celtic]

IF he had a steady diet of really good players like the HOF players....I wonder just how good he could be.

I would suspect his game would jump a few levels at least if he played those guys all the time.

He might be a top 10 player given that all of those other people with huge 1-pocket potential would also benefit from a "real" 1-pocket community and arena.

If you make the game huge and give people a reason to play it then not only Scott benefits. Shannon Daulton would be playing serious, Jeremy Jones would be playing serious, Alex P would have focused alot more on the game. Any of those guys would be monsters if they focused on the game like Scott does.

Guys in the USA who could have been GREAT at the game? Corey Deuel IMO could have been a monster 1-pocket player if he had any sort of a reason to bother. He has a phenomenal touch game and is extremely knowledgable and creative when it comes to the rails. Corey has the natural gifts to flat out be a better 1-pocket player, he like most though does not see much of a reason to do so.

If SVB decides to commit a considerable portion of his practice time (which is huge) into 1-pocket how good does he get 5 years down the road with loads of competition and gathering of knowledge?

If 1-pocket was a international phenom like rotational pool how good would the other guys from the Phillipines be? We saw how good Efren got. What about Orcullo with his shotmaking and touch? Give him 5 stiff years and experience of 1-pocket and see what happens.

In the years when 1-pocket was more relevant alot of the top players played it. Guys like Sigel, Lassiter, Varner, Rempe, Parica, all phenomenal rotation players and those guys often were the monster 1-pocket players as well when they commited effort to that game. When a guy broke through and became the top player that really meant something because ALOT of great players were playing the game with the intent to be the best.

If Scott was the recipient of a phenomenal 1-pocket scene it would be at the expense of a slew of people with extremely high natural talent also playing the game with a serious focus. Scott benefits from the lack of interest in the game in being the best. If the game became popular like it was in the past there are players who have a huge amount of natural talent that would also be taking advantage of it, and while Scott has alot of natural talent he does not have as much as Alex P. They are close to the same age and when Alex was playing abit of 1-pocket he became one of the more dangerous players of the game at a time that noone would have bet on Scott against him. Alex quit, Scott practiced it like crazy, now Scott "might" be better.

IMO Scott is as high on the rankings of active 1-pocket players in the world atm because the game is not played seriously by most of the pool players in the world. There are a slew of players out there that would have become GREAT 1-pocket players right up there with Efren had the game been popular.

 

[donny mills]

Your way too young to have watched most of those players play 1-pocket anywhere near their prime. So am I. Watching a guy play 30 years + past his prime and assuming that is a fair estimate of how he played at his peak is ludicrous.

For what it is worth I like Jeremy Jones against Scott Frost in a long set. Or Daulton.

Even today with hardly anyone putting a considerable amount of effort into the game compared to the days when ALOT of people played 1-pocket Scott is not the best, although he might put more effort into that particular game then the rest of the guys at this point.

Ronnie Allen, Grady, Varner, these guys were monsters when they actually played the game seriously and a huge number of other players were putting alot more effort into the game.

1-pocket is becomming alot more like straight pool every day, it is a game that is not played by the majority of players in the world and the few people who focus on it and become the best are helped out by the fact that there is not alot of people trying to actually get there anymore. When Ronnie Allen was the best 1-pocket player on the planet there were ALOT of people trying to be that guy.

You can count the number of serious 1-pocket players in the world who have both the talent and put the amount of commitment and practice into the game to be great such as was once done on one hand. The 1-pocket scene of the early 1980's was WAY more competitive then it is today.

Specializing in a game that very few people commit a considerable amount of time or attention into and becomming the best at it is not quite the same as becomming the best at a game where alot more people are putting that effort and time into being the best at.

ATM being the best 1-pocket player in the world is a niche with little competition, being the best 10-ball player in the world? That puts you above a world of people all gunning at that position and means ALOT more. Keep in mind, When Allen, Grady, Sigel, ect... were THAT good at 1-pocket relative to the rest of the world, there was ALOT more competition trying to be that guy.

If the game was played anything like it was in the past Scott would not be close. A guy who played phenomenal 1-pocket for the amount of time he put into the game was Alex Pagulayan. If Alex actually put in a considerable amount of time into 1-pocket and lived in an era with competition and a reason to get great at that game he would be a monster and Scott would not be knocking on his door. Jones was a great 1-pocket player with loads of potential, so was Daulton, these guys all have a huge amount of natural talent and simply did not put in the effort into getting great at the game because there was no point.

Well I'm not old enough to have seen alot of those guys in their prime, but I've seen daulton and jones in their prime. It's not rocket science, scott knows all the shots the guys from yesterday know, and now the game has evolved. Generations get better and better. Does everyone think that pool is the only game/sport where the players don't become better?

Perfect example: Do any of you really believe that danny diliberto would have had a chance playing scott frost one pocket? I mean come on are you guys joking!? Lol this is amusing. I'm sure all the guys from 40 years ago would've beat efren at one pocket also.

 

[billychips]

Well I'm not old enough to have seen alot of those guys in their prime, but I've seen daulton and jones in their prime. It's not rocket science, scott knows all the shots the guys from yesterday know, and now the game has evolved. Generations get better and better. Does everyone think that pool is the only game/sport where the players don't become better?

Perfect example: Do any of you really believe that danny diliberto would have had a chance playing scott frost one pocket? I mean come on are you guys joking!? Lol this is amusing. I'm sure all the guys from 40 years ago would've beat efren at one pocket also.

Well said. According to all of the old school legends, pool truly is the only game that players have not progressed and gotten better over the years. It gets kind of old reading how nobody from today's generation could beat all the champions from yesteryear. I wonder if Tiger Woods could beat Arnold Palmer? How about LeBron James being better than Oscar Robertson? I am sure that pool is the only sport that the champions were so good in the old days that todays players just cant catch up to them.

 

[murphy]

I've seen Frost play and he is a very good player. I saw Ronnie Allen in his prime. Allen could name the score, all day, every day. So could most of the others on the list. So could Parica. And it didn't help Frost's reputation to run away from Reyes when Reyes is past his prime.

 

[Ken_4fun]

Actually this the opposite of what I read in Freddy (the Beard) book. He suggested that todays players have no chance against the players of his generation.

Freddy, however, goes on to say he thought the generation BEFORE his was better than his generation.

One of my problems with most people is they never got beat or their generation is better or whatever, but if Freddy suggests his generation of players are the losers from the previous generation it sure makes ya think.

Not trying to put words in his mouth.

Ken

 

[punter]

Well I'm not old enough to have seen alot of those guys in their prime, but I've seen daulton and jones in their prime. It's not rocket science, scott knows all the shots the guys from yesterday know, and now the game has evolved. Generations get better and better. Does everyone think that pool is the only game/sport where the players don't become better?

Perfect example: Do any of you really believe that danny diliberto would have had a chance playing scott frost one pocket? I mean come on are you guys joking!? Lol this is amusing. I'm sure all the guys from 40 years ago would've beat efren at one pocket also.

I think it's amusing that the younger guys automatically assume their generation must be better than the previous ones.

I saw Frost beat Efren the last time. IIRC Frost dogged an open shot that would have won the match, and won when Efren gave him several more chances. Efren played bad in that match and didn't seem to care.

In twenty to thirty years, Donny, you'll probably be telling people how your generation could have dominated the young guys.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Donny makes a good point.
But how has it evolved?

As far as i see, people still run 8 and out.
The only difference between today and 20 years ago when i started playing was that people go for everything today.
Efren was the one who changed all that and he revolutionized the game

But even with the evolution of the game and the equipment and the players. I'd be willing to bet that some if not A LOT of the squeeze factor was lost.

Using a local example.
"Patch eye" Henry

Now admittedly, Henry is getting up there in age. He doesn't shoot as straight as he once did. But even though the guy is ancient, i watched as he played players with superior firepower, and the ONLY thing that kept him afloat was his knowledge of the game, and his totally unbelievable speed control. To the point where these guys just had no idea what to do in certain situations.

So if i had to pick the newer generation, vs the old. Having enjoyed one pocket way more then 9 ball over the years. I'd have to go with the old heads.

Sure Scott shoots straight and yes he does know a ton of shots, but seriously, he is completely outclassed when it goes to an uptable game vs any of the majority of old heads on the list in their prime.

 

[Celtic]

Perfect example: Do any of you really believe that danny diliberto would have had a chance playing scott frost one pocket? I mean come on are you guys joking!? Lol this is amusing. I'm sure all the guys from 40 years ago would've beat efren at one pocket also.

Actually you have two examples and they are VERY different Donny. Scott Frost is NOT Efren. He is not that level of player.

Efren IS one of those guys that people look back and talk about. He IS the best 1-pocket player of his era and he WAS that good that he would be dangerous for anyone. At his peak Efren was also alot better then Scott Frost at 1-pocket, and it was not Efren's only specialty, it was one of many games he split his time between.

Scott Frost is not IMO the best or most talented 1-pocket player of his era. I do think that Jeremy Jones, Shannon Daulton, and a few other players are actually more naturally talented and would be better players if they commited anywhere near the amount of time to the game as Scott has. THAT was my main point, Scott would not beat todays top 1-pocket players if the game was at all popular and kept people interested in getting good at that particular game.

To put things in perspective Donny and keep it at a pure natural talent debate.

Do you Donny, think that if Scott Frost had been born in 1960 and grown up in the same era as many of the great 1-pocket players on that list, had got into the game in that era, learned in that era, and competed in that era, that he would have been the best player of that era?

Sadly enough I cannot reverse that question and ask you how good Ronnie Allen might be playing today if he had been born in the same year as Scott. If he actually grew up in this era I think he would be a killer and Scott would want none of it but the truth is he like everyone else probably would have simply skipped playing 1-pocket because of the lack of participation in that game making being great at it largely pointless compared to the old days.

You know as well as Chris Bartram, John Schmidt and most of the other intelligent players on this forum that natural talent is a huge reason pro's get where they do. The naturally gifted players get good fast and they hit a level most players have no chance of getting to.

Trust me when I say this, the natural born talent within pool players is not increasing, the knowledge has, the equippment got better, the mentalitly towards the game has changed, there are more tools for learning then back then, but the amount of natural talent Ronnie Allen had for 1-pocket was as high as anyone from his generation and it would be high for any generation he was born into, he was the Efren Reyes for 1-pocket in his era, and he played as good as he needed to in order to be the best for his era. No matter what era he was born into that guy would be shown to be one of the most naturally gifted players of any era.

Efren is the same way, would Efren have been as good at 1-pocket as he got if he had been born into the era of Ronnie Allen? Probably not. Would he have still been one of, if not the best player on the planet? Probably. The natural talent does not change, but the era you are born into changes your opportunities to hit different heights.

 

[Fast Lenny]

I am just giving my opinion based on stuff I have heard from one pocket players who I trust their opinion on. I have not seen the other players play in their prime but like Donny has said, the game has evolved and the players games have went up.

I know people will say Scott is just a shooter making a ton of balls, well that is the style you will see for him playing fearless at times. He does have another gear, he has actually more gears then an 18 wheeler. He can move with anyone too although he does not need to show it much as he usually beats the guy to the shot or pulls a shot out. I think most people look at the old "traditional" style one pocket and do not believe what they are seeing as one pocket, no its not one pocket for us mortals but it is what it is for the top players today.

I am actually sitting here a bit irritated because I will bet you all that Scott is better then everyone on the list besides Efren and it would probably be close with Ronnie and Scott, but neither of us can win my bet because most on the list are dead and gone or not able to play like they did. Ronnie and Scott did play but Ronnie was way past his prime obviously with Scott giving Ronnie I believe 10-6 and winning.

I think that most of you see top one pocket players in your area and they might be able to give you 10-6 or 9-7, well Scott can give most of these one pocket players 10-6 and love it. I have seen it here in my state with Scott beating all of our top players giving up 10-6 and then some, maybe some of these guys will chime in.

Scott is my friend but I know a guy who I consider a very good friend and close to Scott who played I believe it was Jimmy Fusco even for a bunch of money, has played Gabe Owen for money, has played one pocket for $5,000 a game so he knows the game pretty well and I value his opinion. I guess unless you play him yourself or see him play someone who you think he cant give this or that and then sticks it up their pooper well then you will be a believer too.

I would like for Billy I and SJD to weigh in, they were top players in their day and played with most on this list, I trust their opinions on this. We can all put in our 2 cents but majority of our opinions have nothing to back it up as we have not seen them all play. One thing about Scott is he is a much better player then he was 10 years ago when he was running around with Jack Cooney getting seasoned, did you know Scott was Jack Cooney's son?, well that was there story, haha. :grin:

Either way I am glad we are all talking about one pocket which is the best game in pool with so much going on, when the bug bites your hooked! :wink:

 

[Fast Lenny]

Donny makes a good point.
But how has it evolved?

As far as i see, people still run 8 and out.
The only difference between today and 20 years ago when i started playing was that people go for everything today.
Efren was the one who changed all that and he revolutionized the game

But even with the evolution of the game and the equipment and the players. I'd be willing to bet that some if not A LOT of the squeeze factor was lost.

Using a local example.
"Patch eye" Henry

Now admittedly, Henry is getting up there in age. He doesn't shoot as straight as he once did. But even though the guy is ancient, i watched as he played players with superior firepower, and the ONLY thing that kept him afloat was his knowledge of the game, and his totally unbelievable speed control. To the point where these guys just had no idea what to do in certain situations.

So if i had to pick the newer generation, vs the old. Having enjoyed one pocket way more then 9 ball over the years. I'd have to go with the old heads.

Sure Scott shoots straight and yes he does know a ton of shots, but seriously, he is completely outclassed when it goes to an uptable game vs any of the majority of old heads on the list in their prime.

Efren is the most creative one pocket player there was but the guy who changed the game of one pocket forever and created Power One Pocket was Ronnie Allen, Scott plays the most like RA. Well I gotta run guys but I like the discussion even though it is all opinions but one thing I will say one pocket is alive and well, more people are playing it now then ever I believe. :smile:

 

[SJDinPHX]

They are both lefties but I think Scott played a solid ball over Jersey Red in one pocket. I know Dick has played with both and also Ronnie Allen and knows how they all play, come on Dick and chime in bud. :smile:

Lenny,

This is just my opinion. Scott would probably be the favorite, to beat anybody in the world RIGHT NOW, at one pocket, in a long set.

I am trying not to live in the past, but for about ten years of his prime, No one on earth, before or since...could have beat RA even up, when his mixture was right. (which he controlled very well)
I never saw him shoot the wrong shot, and he could run 8 or 10 and out, as easy as Scott does, on a lot tougher equipment. (and also in a lot rougher spots)

I know its hard to look at him now, and see that...but I honestly believe that Efren (in his prime) may not have got there, due to Ronnie's superior moving, not to mention the conversation. Red was never near the "cash getter" that RA was, even though their game was pretty close.

If you tried to pin me down, to the best in their primes..I would say #1 all time--- RA/Worst, a toss up...then Marvin Henderson/Efren tied for #2, Then I would rate Jersey Red, Ed Kelly, and Scott, a close 3rd. (along with maybe AB and several others) Artie apparently played a great game, but he just never left his home court enough for ANYONE to accurately judge his speed. I have been around a little bit, and never saw, or heard of AB, until I joined 1P.org. a few years ago...And I'm not the only one to say that.

Again, this is just based on my experience, and what I've seen. And its JMHO

Cardone or Grady may see it different, and they have seen all those guys in action more than I have. Be interesting to see their take on this subject.

SJD

 

[Russ Chewning]

It's not rocket science, scott knows all the shots the guys from yesterday know, and now the game has evolved.

Donny, you are a great player, but I think a little off here. I absolutely, 100% guarantee that Scott does not know all the shots that Ronnie Allen knew in his prime. He blew the minds even of the great players in his OWN generation. Have you seen his match against Diliberto, when he was obviously a bit over the hill? Have you seen the Captain match against Harry Platis and McReady? Ronnie Allen saw shots nobody else saw, and executed them perfectly!!

Generations get better and better. Does everyone think that pool is the only game/sport where the players don't become better?

Please name one bank pool player alive today that you think could play with Eddie Taylor, please. Just one.

If the game is currently played makes a BIG difference in whether modern players can beat the old crowd.

Russ

 

[Celtic]

Actually this the opposite of what I read in Freddy (the Beard) book. He suggested that todays players have no chance against the players of his generation.

Freddy, however, goes on to say he thought the generation BEFORE his was better than his generation.

One of my problems with most people is they never got beat or their generation is better or whatever, but if Freddy suggests his generation of players are the losers from the previous generation it sure makes ya think.

Not trying to put words in his mouth.

Ken

Given Freddy's generation that is actually not all that surprising. Freddy I am guessing is the 1960's/70's generation where Lassiter, Boston Shorty, Cisero, and others were prowling around. The generation previous to that was Mosconi, Caras, Ponzi, Crane, a VERY different breed of pool player that truly has not existed since, and Mosconi's era was strong, that is what makes it all the more surprising how dominant he was.

Those guys were competitors and professionals when pool was a fairly well paying and respected sport. Pool changed greatly after that era and kind of went underground compared to the exposure it had during Mosconi's time. It has never come back to where it was after Mosconi's era, not even close. If you want to see pool hit that level of focus again something like the IPT will have to come about and it will have to stick.

If the IPT had succeeded and become what it had intended to be the players would be far better then they are today.

I would guess those hypothetical IPT pro's who practice and compete for the chance to win $300,000-$500,000 for first place in each event, many matches being worth 10's of thousands of dollars would be spotting their current counterparts the last 2 in 10-ball or 2 games to 10 on the wire in 8-ball.

Given a few years of that kind of pool scene the players would be drastically better then they are today, and players with tremendous talent who simply don't put the effort in would come out of the woodwork and prove to be great players. The small amount of the IPT that took place showed it to a degree, the players were shooting better then they had previously and they have dropped off since then with that carrot removed.

 

[Fast Lenny]

Lenny,

This is just my opinion. Scott would probably be the favorite, to beat anybody in the world RIGHT NOW, at one pocket, in a long set.

I am trying not to live in the past, but for about ten years of his prime, No one on earth, before or since...could have beat RA even up, when his mixture was right. (which he controlled very well)
I never saw him shoot the wrong shot, and he could run 8 or 10 and out, as easy as Scott does, on a lot tougher equipment. (and also in a lot rougher spots)

I know its hard to look at him now, and see that...but I honestly believe that Efren (in his prime) may not have got there, due to Ronnie's superior moving, not to mention the conversation. Red was never near the "cash getter" that RA was, even though their game was pretty close.

If you tried to pin me down, to the best in their primes..I would say #1 all time--- RA/Worst, a toss up...then Marvin Henderson/Efren tied for #2, Then I would rate Jersey Red, Ed Kelly, and Scott, a close 3rd. (along with maybe AB and several others) Artie apparently played a great game, but he just never left his home court enough for ANYONE to accurately judge his speed. I have been around a little bit, and never saw, or heard of AB, until I joined 1P.org. a few years ago...And I'm not the only one to say that.

Again, this is just based on my experience, and what I've seen. And its JMHO

Cardone or Grady may see it different, and they have seen all those guys in action more than I have. Be interesting to see their take on this subject.

SJD

Thanks for posting Dick. I think this is a fun discussion and might bring up some good stories too. You played RA also and how did you guys play in your primes and also how did Red match up with both of you?