There are other lists that include the professional championships which do list Hoppe. Most of Hoppe's championships were at forms of the game other than 3-cushion.
So who was (is) the Greatest Player ever ?
- Thread starter PoolBoy1
- Start date
interesting
so really there may have been alot of better 3 cushion players?
so really there may have been alot of better 3 cushion players?
A story about that match....
The Europeans were known at the time for playing position and a more offensive game. Shorty said before the tournament that the Europeans were going to have a really hard time with his leaves.
I think the Ceulemans-Shorty match was in the first round of the tournament (which was a round-robin to 60 points). Before the match started, Shorty asked Raymond if he would like to bet something on the side. He was either not understood or ignored as I don't think there was any bet.
In any case, Ceulemans made 60 to Shorty's 8 with 2.308 average -- an average no American could hope to score at that time.
The tournament format allowed a beaten player to have an equalizing inning starting from the break shot if he had not broken, so Shorty stepped up to the table needing a run of 52 from the break shot to tie. He got 2 for an average of 0.385 which is bad even for me.
As Byrne points out, Cochran may have been the better 3-C player over all. At that time (1930s) the Europeans were not yet averaging 1.0 in tournaments.
I'm sticking with Harold Worst...although I never saw him play.
I asked the Miz once if he played as good as the stories about him...
...The Miz said "He played better than the stories."
..here is something worth reading....forgot I had saved it...
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Harold Worst Pool Billiards the Best.htm
I asked the Miz once if he played as good as the stories about him...
...The Miz said "He played better than the stories."
..here is something worth reading....forgot I had saved it...
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Harold Worst Pool Billiards the Best.htm
Shorty v. Ceulemans
So Ceulemans wouldn't take Shorty's offer to bet on a match that he really couldn't lose at...so it's probably safe to say the he also wouldn't take Shorty up on some 1-pocket for any cash.
So Ceulemans wouldn't take Shorty's offer to bet on a match that he really couldn't lose at...so it's probably safe to say the he also wouldn't take Shorty up on some 1-pocket for any cash.
Eldridge Tucker from SC. Luther Lassiter wanted no part of him.
There are world champions that don't gamble...
...three men named Davis come to mind at snooker.
I like action, but I would never denigrate a man who doesn't gamble.
3kushn -
It would give Shorty more reason to be considered a better all-around player because he would beat Ceulemans at any game except 3-cushion billiards. I was making a point that to be considered the best ever one should consider all-around ability...which imo Shorty tops Ceulemans.
It would give Shorty more reason to be considered a better all-around player because he would beat Ceulemans at any game except 3-cushion billiards. I was making a point that to be considered the best ever one should consider all-around ability...which imo Shorty tops Ceulemans.
It wasn't in the title...but it was in the original post....
...this thread is about POOL PLAYERS.
So billiards and snooker greats have no place in this thread.
If Ceulemans had attempted to be a pool player, then he could justly
be compared to Larry Johnson.
So, to me, it is irrelevant whether Shorty was a better allrounder than
Raymond Ceulemans or Genghis Khan....
...it IS relevant how he stood with other allround pool players.
IMO
I agree with that 'billiards and snooker greats have no place in this thread.' I do think that tournament victories cannot be the judge of who the greatest all-around player is/was. The game of pool has a history of tournaments not paying a professional wage that the best players made their money playing in money games instead of tournaments.
Shorty's achievements of playing at all pool games at a very high level should be judged by his success at winning money and not by how many tournaments he won. He simply didn't enter tournaments that he could have won because the return on investment was not worth it. In those days success in tournament play could harm an ability to make money games.
I am not saying that Shorty definitely was the best all-around player ever...I am just saying that he should be considered an important part of the discussion.
In spite of Shorty's lack of tournament credentials his skills were recognized enough to be voted into the BCA Hall of Fame. Here is Shorty's bio on the BCA website:
"Larry Johnson studied the techniques and shots of Boston's best. By age 20, he could beat the players he studied. Unfortunately, his skill prospered during lean times for pool (the 40's and 50's), and so, the record books don't fully credit the skills of many of the players of that era. But, Boston Shorty was simply one of the very best. Johnson was not only a top 9-Baller, but among the cream of the crop at Rotation, 1-Pocket, Straight Pool, 3-Cushion Billiards, 8-Ball, Cribbage, Cowboy and more. During the famed Johnson City and Las Vegas events of the early 1960's, Johnson captured World All-Around Champion in the last staging of both events, and later collected many other titles. Johnson mastered all games early in his career and played at that speed for four decades."
Last edited:
I'm always pleased to see Larry Johnson's name mentioned.
...and he is rightfully in the BCA HOF.
He was kind to me since I was a kid and I know many carom solutions
because of him.
Larry Liscotti was fond of Shorty also and would take him to tournaments
as he got older....he liked to call him Shortstop.
Liscotti threatened to hook him up with a girl in her 20s at one tournament..
....Shorty in that raspy voice of his said "What're trying to do, kill me?"
Fortunately, a lot of the commentary is recognizing that all of the pocket pool games are the key.
I'll still go with Luther Lassiter, and I understand a lot of sentiment for Efren. All lot of that sentiment comes from people who aren't old enough to have ever seen Lassiter. Efren didn't compete and win in enough 14.1 to get the nod, in my opinion. If he did, he might have been the best all-around. Those with explosive rotation games are also great, but don't have the whole portfolio.
The following get honorable mentions though:
Harold Worst
Mike Sigel
Nick Varner
I'll still go with Luther Lassiter, and I understand a lot of sentiment for Efren. All lot of that sentiment comes from people who aren't old enough to have ever seen Lassiter. Efren didn't compete and win in enough 14.1 to get the nod, in my opinion. If he did, he might have been the best all-around. Those with explosive rotation games are also great, but don't have the whole portfolio.
The following get honorable mentions though:
Harold Worst
Mike Sigel
Nick Varner
You may have missed this link I posted earlier.
Harold Worst beat the player Luther admired...Don Willis
...and he wanted no part of him for the cash.
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Harold Worst Pool Billiards the Best.htm
Actually I did catch your post, good one, and that's why I think it's very close between Lassiter and Worst. At least we've gotten the conversation beyond Efren.
I admit to not having seen Harold Worst. And since he passed early, his potential was undoubtedly cut short.
I did personally see Luther Lassiter destroy Eddie Taylor in mid-1960s ABC's Wide World of Sports, as well as two exhibitions at my local high school. I still maintain that nobody could compete over the long run with a 1960s Lassiter, knowing he competed at all the games. I also knew Babe Cranfield in the late 70s, and even though he beat Lassiter in some well known 14.1 contests, he told me more than once he thought Lassiter was the best all-round due to his skill in the rotation games and one pocket. And the guys that Lassiter supposedly wanted no part of don't really resonate with me, if they didn't win known tournaments.
I do admit it is arguable between Lassiter and Worst. That's why I gave Worst the highest honorable mention. Good fodder for duscussion anyhow, and this is not one where there's a definitive answer.
Unlike the highest run. Uh oh, let's not go there...
From my experience, it comes down to a "given day"
I wish to have witnessed Worst and Lassiter play, however, they were before my time.
The only link I had to them was through Wade Crane (Billy Johnson) who said Lassiter was, in his opinion, the greatest 9-Ball player (he talked fondly of Worst and others too). Wade, with his dominating break, was unbeatable at times too.
From my experience, it comes down to a "given day" - there may have been players that could have won against Lassiter, Sigel, Reyes,Varner, Crane, and Strickland, although on a "given day" they were/are certainly masters of the game.
I wish to have witnessed Worst and Lassiter play, however, they were before my time.
The only link I had to them was through Wade Crane (Billy Johnson) who said Lassiter was, in his opinion, the greatest 9-Ball player (he talked fondly of Worst and others too). Wade, with his dominating break, was unbeatable at times too.
From my experience, it comes down to a "given day" - there may have been players that could have won against Lassiter, Sigel, Reyes,Varner, Crane, and Strickland, although on a "given day" they were/are certainly masters of the game.
madfedaykin
Registered
Only a few people saw Efren play in his prime in the 70's (his best years according to him on interviews). A lot of us saw his greatness when he was already some 10 years or so past his prime (starting 1984 or 85?) when he started playing in the US. Hope the people who saw his exploits in the pool halls of Manila and Angeles City in the 70s can give us first-hand accounts of how good he was then, and how he compares with the other greats.
you have to take what Efren says with grain of salt, lots of hearsay and mistranslations over the years and he's also been known to exaggerate
do not let the humble act fool ya, u don't become the king of the jungle being mr. nice guy
i highly doubt Efren's prime was the 70's, maybe his ball pocketing was but not overall
do not let the humble act fool ya, u don't become the king of the jungle being mr. nice guy
i highly doubt Efren's prime was the 70's, maybe his ball pocketing was but not overall