The gratuitous (and tired) "Mosconi would turn over in his grave"

[alstl]

If you have “The Hustler And The Champ” by R.A. Dyer, turn to page 101 and start reading. If you don’t have it, it’s worth getting.

The 1941 World Championship Tournament was a true test of superiority in which 8 of the world’s top players played each other in a 32x round robin over the course of five months in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Boston, Scranton and Syracuse.

Final won/loss records were as follows:
Mosconi 176/48
Ponzi 144/80
Caras 125/99
Procita 117/107
Lauri 109/115
Rudolph 99/125
Kelly 85/139
Irish 41/183

Smashing all other opponents in such a lengthy tournament was certainly impressive, but it doesn’t help us to understand how good Mosconi was at the time. To get a more subjective idea and to try and compare his performance to those of modern day players I’d look to his statistics for the tournament.

Mosconi ran hundreds like crazy in a performance that pool historian Charles Ursitti describes as equal to Dimaggio’s 56 game hitting streak (which occurred the same year!) and Bob Beamon’s 29 foot long jump in 1968.

Over the course of his 224 games, “Willie ran 125, 126 or 127 and out EVERY ELEVENTH GAME”.

There’s honestly no way to make a direct or fair comparison between players from straight pool’s golden era to players of today because the equipment is quite a bit different (easier today with better balls, faster cloth, etc) and because straight pool was all Mosconi, et. al. played, whereas today’s players split their time between 9 ball, 10 ball, straight pool, one pocket, etc. Giving Thorsten, Oliver, John and others the old equipment and a year or so to get used to it; they’d easily be able to compete against the historical greats of the game. Just as giving Mosconi, Ponzi or Greenleaf a Simonis-covered Diamond or Gold Crown and a set of Aramith Super Pro balls and they’d adapt just as easily. We have living proof that the transition from old equipment to new wouldn’t be that difficult in the form of Sigel, Varner, Rempe, ec. Players who played on the 80/20 felt and excelled, and then continued to excel and compete at world class level after Simonis became the standard cloth. I do believe, however, that Mosconi would be in a league of his own even today because he was so damned consistent. He rarely had bad days or bad tournaments. Just my opinion.

Ron F

I saw an interview with Jimmy Moore where he was asked whether Mosconi could have excelled at 9 ball or one pocket. He said absolutely, he had so much talent that he could have played any game. He didn't pull any punches about what he thought about various players but it was obvious he had great respect for Mosconi's game.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Al, with all due respect, Willie himself would have rolled over in his grave if he watched what he did in that video. There was nothing interesting or inventive in it, just a few bad decisions and a few bad executions. The man was a genius obviously but I was a little curious why you chose that particular end-rack to show the forum.

For those who didn't see it, here is the thread. If anyone can defend this out as solid pattern play, I'd like to hear it.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=216574

For me, the Willie-rolling-over-in-his-grave notion is nonsense because there are many, many ways to play a rack of straight pool. There might be a thousand permutations of a ten ball end pattern that all make sense, and implying that one is that much better than another is usually fruitless. However, there are times the pattern played (either by naivete, carelessness, or imprecision) is clearly wrong, and as students of the game I think it's ok to discuss these instances in a forum like this.

But the idea of implying that certain players were impervious to bad decisions is flat-out wrong, which is why I never liked the phrase.

- Steve

 

[LAlouie]

Ah, but here's where your "here you be..." fails. I *have* seen Mosconi play -- not matches, of coures, but exhibitions. You didn't see that in post #4?

And what's funny is that you touched upon -- grazed, if you will -- the topic of today's players and equipment vs. yesteryear's players and equipment, but completely missed the very point embedded in that topic that I was getting at. And that point is this:

"What use is it to say 'Mosconi would be turning over in his grave' in reference to today's players on today's equipment?" They just don't compare, and it's a useless comparison anyway -- THAT is my point.

Just to appease the Mosconi crowd -- this thread is in no way to bash Mosconi (he is one of my top three favorite players of all time, afterall!). Rather, it's to call out the old-timers who make this ridiculous "turning over in his grave" claim.

Does that help clarify?

-Sean

Funny thing about 14.1 Part of the game is the beauty of the play. So, you can have a player running 400, and have people say "yeah, but that was a bad 400". I happen to subscribe to this and not because I know what the right way is,,,I don't. But I DO know what pattern appeals to my eyes, and in a way it's much like listening to music or seeing something beautiful. 14.1 patterns have a particular beauty unto themselves and it differs from onlooker to onlooker. Now, to me, I like to watch a player massage a rack and I hate watching players break a table wide open and play 9ball straight pool, even though I know the %'s are better on a wide open table. It's just an ugly way to play. If I think that way, how do you think a 500ball runner would think. I may not know 14.1 that well, but I know ugly.

So yes, Mosconi would turn over in his grave. The greater the player, the more adamant he is about how something is done, which makes sense because he made his rep on the way HE played patterns. There are many ways to run a rack. A bunch are good and a whole bunch are bad. And even worse, if you play bad patterns and run hundreds, that'll piss off a great player even more, and he'll tell you you didn't deserve the run.

 

[Scott Brazier]

Here is a 2 hour 24 minute Grudge Match: Willie Mosconi vs Minnesota Fats

I believe Mosconi is 60 years old in this video.

The first minute of the video is distorted but the rest is good.

In this match, they played 9 ball, 8 ball, rotation, straight pool, 1 pocket

http://pool.bz/variety-pool-videos/1070-grudge-match-willie-mosconi-vs-minnesota-fats.html

 

[The Schwartz]

Here is a 2 hour 24 minute Grudge Match: Willie Mosconi vs Minnesota Fats

I believe Mosconi is 60 years old in this video.

The first minute of the video is distorted but the rest is good.

In this match, they played 9 ball, 8 ball, rotation, straight pool, 1 pocket

http://pool.bz/variety-pool-videos/1070-grudge-match-willie-mosconi-vs-minnesota-fats.html

funny at 30:30 when Willie says 8 ball is mostly luck because there are only 8 balls to run plus the black ball. 17 balls in Willie's rack!

 

[pdcue]

Russ:

Sorry about that -- I confused your screenname with another member here that has a "14oneman-like" screenname.

Yes, you got it right -- I'm trying to call out the old-timers that say modern-day 14.1 players approach to the game would "make Willie turn over in his grave." And I'm calling them out for even *using* this tired old cliche -- which has no root in truth whatsoever. Willie would be happy to see that the game he loved is even still alive. I'm calling out those old-timers who may even be using this cliche to "sound important" as if just because they were alive during Mosconi's heyday (specifically towards players who may not have been), that they have reason to even use this tired old cliche, like there would be no useful response from the person it was directed towards.

Sorry if this wasn't clear. Your first post in this thread, btw, was PRECISELY what I was getting at -- the old, tired "but Sean, were you even alive during Mosconi's time?" type of response. You exemplified it perfectly, and I thank you.

-Sean

Unfortunately, Willie would turn over in his grave.

I may not be oldtimmer enough to qualify - but I can tell from your post,
assumming you are not just trolling, that you don't understand Willie's "style" of play.
He would most likely dismiss them, as he often did,
as a bunch of great shot-makers, but<wait for it> they have to be.

His precision and control was at a whole different level. Not unlike
the way that Reyes guy was in One Pocket.

Dale

 

[Mr441]

Funny thing about 14.1 Part of the game is the beauty of the play. So, you can have a player running 400, and have people say "yeah, but that was a bad 400". I happen to subscribe to this and not because I know what the right way is,,,I don't. But I DO know what pattern appeals to my eyes, and in a way it's much like listening to music or seeing something beautiful. 14.1 patterns have a particular beauty unto themselves and it differs from onlooker to onlooker. Now, to me, I like to watch a player massage a rack and I hate watching players break a table wide open and play 9ball straight pool, even though I know the %'s are better on a wide open table. It's just an ugly way to play. If I think that way, how do you think a 500ball runner would think. I may not know 14.1 that well, but I know ugly.

So yes, Mosconi would turn over in his grave. The greater the player, the more adamant he is about how something is done, which makes sense because he made his rep on the way HE played patterns. There are many ways to run a rack. A bunch are good and a whole bunch are bad.


It's ridiculous to say that a run isn't earned. If you can run 200 or 300 balls, even if it's not the "right way", it's a valid run. I can't imagine a great 14.1 player saying that a run isn't earned. Earl Strickland ran 408 in practice, now while I didn't see it I am sure he did a lot of unorthodox things during the run, but 408 is 408! There are some great traditional 14.1 players that have never run 400 balls. Do they "deserve" a 400 ball run just because they play the "right way"? If they could run 400 than they would have done it.

 

[The Schwartz]

Funny thing about 14.1 Part of the game is the beauty of the play. So, you can have a player running 400, and have people say "yeah, but that was a bad 400". I happen to subscribe to this and not because I know what the right way is,,,I don't. But I DO know what pattern appeals to my eyes, and in a way it's much like listening to music or seeing something beautiful. 14.1 patterns have a particular beauty unto themselves and it differs from onlooker to onlooker. Now, to me, I like to watch a player massage a rack and I hate watching players break a table wide open and play 9ball straight pool, even though I know the %'s are better on a wide open table. It's just an ugly way to play. If I think that way, how do you think a 500ball runner would think. I may not know 14.1 that well, but I know ugly.

So yes, Mosconi would turn over in his grave. The greater the player, the more adamant he is about how something is done, which makes sense because he made his rep on the way HE played patterns. There are many ways to run a rack. A bunch are good and a whole bunch are bad.


It's ridiculous to say that a run isn't earned. If you can run 200 or 300 balls, even if it's not the "right way", it's a valid run. I can't imagine a great 14.1 player saying that a run isn't earned. Earl Strickland ran 408 in practice, now while I didn't see it I am sure he did a lot of unorthodox things during the run, but 408 is 408! There are some great traditional 14.1 players that have never run 400 balls. Do they "deserve" a 400 ball run just because they play the "right way"? If they could run 400 than they would have done it.

I agree with this. It's all about the scoreboard.

 

[Dan White]

I agree with this. It's all about the scoreboard.

I dunno. I agree that there are beautiful 100 ball runs and ugly ones. Either way you deserve the 100, but wouldn't you rather have done it with complete control, not relying on wild-ass shots?

To say it's all about the numbers implies that a 300 ball run is better than a 200 ball run no matter what. I'm not sure I agree. It's like saying a painting is all about the size. Well, I'd rather have an 8x10 inch Rembrandt than a wall-sized mural done by somebody's 3rd grade kid. One is bigger than the other, but which do you think exhibited more skill?

Just a thought...

 

[Mr441]

I dunno. I agree that there are beautiful 100 ball runs and ugly ones. Either way you deserve the 100, but wouldn't you rather have done it with complete control, not relying on wild-ass shots?

To say it's all about the numbers implies that a 300 ball run is better than a 200 ball run no matter what. I'm not sure I agree. It's like saying a painting is all about the size. Well, I'd rather have an 8x10 inch Rembrandt than a wall-sized mural done by somebody's 3rd grade kid. One is bigger than the other, but which do you think exhibited more skill?

Just a thought...

The difference is that anyone can paint a large painting, not many can run 200 or 300 balls. It takes great skill to run 300 balls, it may not neccesarily be done in a traditional 14.1 manner but it still incredibly difficult to accomplish. Even if it's an "ugly run" the player would have to come up with some very difficult shots or position to overcome weaker patterns to achieve this.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Mosconi can roll as much as he wants. I'd rather run ugly 100's than perfect 50's.

I'm a believer in good patterns, it's the key to big numbers. But I think the concept of good patterns is changing due to increased shotmaking ability of today's players and equipment that is being used to today.

I think the best parallel is the evolution of snooker. When Stephen Hendry came along he would break into the pack of reds at the earliest moment. Snooker purists initially cringed at that.

 

[sfleinen]

Mosconi can roll as much as he wants. I'd rather run ugly 100's than perfect 50's.

I'm a believer in good patterns, it's the key to big numbers. But I think the concept of good patterns is changing due to increased shotmaking ability of today's players and equipment that is being used to today.

I think the best parallel is the evolution of snooker. When Stephen Hendry came along he would break into the pack of reds at the earliest moment. Snooker purists initially cringed at that.

Hey folks!

Sorry I'd been absent from this thread for a while. But alas, I have to humbly offer myself for a flogging, for the reason why I'd been absent is... I'd actually been at the table playing, and NOT HERE.

I think Cameron sums up my latest response best. I chuckle a bit at the responses (without naming names) that are basically trying to state a "beautiful 50" is somehow better than an "ugly 100." Folks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that the shooter was able to wrestle a 100 out of a table that wasn't cooperating, or else a pattern envisioning that was somehow flawed, has a beauty all its own -- not the least of which is THAT IT WAS EXECUTED INTO EXISTENCE. It was performed. It exists. It wreaked havoc on the opponent -- especially if the race was 100 to begin with. That "ugly 100" sat the opponent in the chair, and subjected him/her to its "ugliness" without him/her being able to do a god-damned thing about it. You know something? For some opponents, I'd RATHER "wrestle-out" an "ugly 100" just to p!ss him/her off, than a "beautiful 50" that he/she can later say, "well, the balls just broke perfectly for him/her, and the planets just seemed to align on every shot. But it was beautiful to watch!" I'd like to conquer a difficult table right in front of my opponent's eyes, that he/she will have no doubt that I showed some extreme marksmanship and cue ball control, that he/she will later respect.

Don't get me wrong -- beautiful runs are beautiful runs. But I'll take an ugly 100 over a beautiful 50 any day of the week. Getting to the finish line first is what counts in 14.1. Not the beauty of the run. I think folks have lost their way -- they've let the "TV ways of beauty" marketing enter into their subconscious and let that color what's important, rather than the goals of the game itself.

You know something? I'd *LOVE* to see Earl Strickland's 408-ball high run. I'd like to see how Earl *leveraged* (key operative word) his skills in manipulating the cue ball that only he knows how, to get from ball to ball to ball. That, to me, is the very definition of leveraging what he does best, and letting his cue do the talking. Not "trying to be beautiful" or trying to "be like Willie." He got to 408 for a reason, and it wasn't luck -- Earl did what he could, within his skillsets, and gosh, he must've executed upon that skillset perfectly. I'll bet that, while watching Earl's 408, I'll see Earl approach things very differently from a "traditional" 14.1 player. That, to me, is quite refreshing.

-Sean

 

[pdcue]

Hey folks!

Sorry I'd been absent from this thread for a while. But alas, I have to humbly offer myself for a flogging, for the reason why I'd been absent is... I'd actually been at the table playing, and NOT HERE.

I think Cameron sums up my latest response best. I chuckle a bit at the responses (without naming names) that are basically trying to state a "beautiful 50" is somehow better than an "ugly 100." Folks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that the shooter was able to wrestle a 100 out of a table that wasn't cooperating, or else a pattern envisioning that was somehow flawed, has a beauty all its own -- not the least of which is THAT IT WAS EXECUTED INTO EXISTENCE. It was performed. It exists. It wreaked havoc on the opponent -- especially if the race was 100 to begin with. That "ugly 100" sat the opponent in the chair, and subjected him/her to its "ugliness" without him/her being able to do a god-damned thing about it. You know something? For some opponents, I'd RATHER "wrestle-out" an "ugly 100" just to p!ss him/her off, than a "beautiful 50" that he/she can later say, "well, the balls just broke perfectly for him/her, and the planets just seemed to align on every shot. But it was beautiful to watch!" I'd like to conquer a difficult table right in front of my opponent's eyes, that he/she will have no doubt that I showed some extreme marksmanship and cue ball control, that he/she will later respect.

Don't get me wrong -- beautiful runs are beautiful runs. But I'll take an ugly 100 over a beautiful 50 any day of the week. Getting to the finish line first is what counts in 14.1. Not the beauty of the run. I think folks have lost their way -- they've let the "TV ways of beauty" marketing enter into their subconscious and let that color what's important, rather than the goals of the game itself.

You know something? I'd *LOVE* to see Earl Strickland's 408-ball high run. I'd like to see how Earl *leveraged* (key operative word) his skills in manipulating the cue ball that only he knows how, to get from ball to ball to ball. That, to me, is the very definition of leveraging what he does best, and letting his cue do the talking. Not "trying to be beautiful" or trying to "be like Willie." He got to 408 for a reason, and it wasn't luck -- Earl did what he could, within his skillsets, and gosh, he must've executed upon that skillset perfectly. I'll bet that, while watching Earl's 408, I'll see Earl approach things very differently from a "traditional" 14.1 player. That, to me, is quite refreshing.

-Sean

Still missing the point I see.

14.1 isn't only about high runs, and it certainly isn't only about
'who's high ruh is the higest' tho unfortunately - that is what many people tend to focus on.

At the risk of repeating my repeating - Willie was the definition of precision,
control, and consistency - that is what wins a fistful of World Championships.

At one point I said I didn't think you were trolling - I would like to amend that assesment.

The title of this thread sholuld have been something like:
"Whaaa - I want you to respect today's hot shotmakers"

Dale<better than your average shotmaker>

 

[sfleinen]

Still missing the point I see.

14.1 isn't only about high runs, and it certainly isn't only about
'who's high ruh is the higest' tho unfortunately - that is what many people tend to focus on.

At the risk of repeating my repeating - Willie was the definition of precision,
control, and consistency - that is what wins a fistful of World Championships.

At one point I said I didn't think you were trolling - I would like to amend that assesment.

The title of this thread sholuld have been something like:
"Whaaa - I want you to respect today's hot shotmakers"

Dale<better than your average shotmaker>

Dale:

Hit a nerve, I see? And you're missing the point, too. My point with this thread was to call out the old, tired "Mosconi would be rolling over in his grave" hanger-ons and to create a useful discussion about it. It was not to troll or diss Mosconi, yet that's precisely what some are trying to turn this thread into. In fact, you're conveniently demonstrating what I'm talking about with the latter camp. Your notion, "At the risk of repeating my repeating - Willie was the definition of precision, control, and consistency" is old and tired, too -- and not what this thread is about. That's why I hadn't responded to it. And, you're trying to make this personal, too, with the dig about the title of this thread. Sorry, you can cast that bait all you want -- I ain't taking it.

Let's get this straight -- this thread ain't about dissing Mosconi or to troll. It's to try to get to the heart of the matter of the useless comparison of Mosconi to today's players with that gratuitous and tired expression. (Interesting side-note: it seems to be limited to Mosconi, too. Noone says "Mizerak would be turning over in his grave," or "Ralph Greenleaf would be turning over in his grave.") And so far it seems to have worked -- some really great feedback has resulted from both sides.

Oh, and let's get this straight as well -- like anyone that appreciates playing and spectating in this sport, I appreciate a well-executed run just like anyone. My point about the "ugly 100" is targeted specifically at those that foist the beauty of the run over its execution -- as if to say "beauty first, always."

It's almost like, "if you can't make the run beautiful, don't even bother -- run a few, play safe, run a few, play safe." Or,"if you can't play along the lines of Mosconi's patterns and beauty, you shouldn't even be playing our hallowed sport -- very quietly turn around, and walk away from the altar. You don't need to be here." And I know you're not saying that, right Dale?

-Sean

 

[zensteve]

Sean,

If I may butt in here? I'm a 3C player that loves 14.1. Always have always will. I'm 57 years old and was brought up on 14.1.

I concur with your assessment. However, I'm sure you agree that anytime you even question platitudes regarding iconic figures like Mosconi you will get responses like you have received.

What is ironic and entertaining is that the very people that take issue with you are actually making your point. They have to know that don't they?

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

If I may butt in here? I'm a 3C player that loves 14.1. Always have always will. I'm 57 years old and was brought up on 14.1.

I concur with your assessment. However, I'm sure you agree that anytime you even question platitudes regarding iconic figures like Mosconi you will get responses like you have received.

What is ironic and entertaining is that the very people that take issue with you are actually making your point. They have to know that don't they?

Steve:

Thank you, and of course(!) your viewpoints, pro or con, are welcome here. A tip o' the hat to you for very succinctly pointing this out. What I'm learning here -- and it's a shame -- is that "altar worship" and idolatry can sometimes cloud one's otherwise good judgment and ability to participate in discussions.

Mosconi was a genius. In fact, why did I even have to write that? Isn't it assumed? I'll tell you why. Because those that take issue with me seem to think that, by questioning the overuse (abuse is the correct term, actually) and even applicability of the old/tired/gratuitous "Mosconi would be turning in his grave" in reference to today's players, think that I'm questioning the Great One's legacy himself. Or they're chastising me for "not drinking the Mosconi idolatry Kool-Aid" and even try to put me on the spot with statements as to whether I even saw Mosconi play, or whether I was even alive during his heyday. When that's not even where I was trying to go with the thread.

My point is that the phrase actually HURTS Mosconi's legacy. By continued use of this non-applicable phrase, it actually has the REVERSE effect. It puts Mosconi's achievements and playing ability into the "beyond surreal realm" -- and unfairly. Sort of like those Chuck Norris jokes. The man *did* make mistakes, he *did* execute bad patterns, and they are on film -- as shown in a prior post. So to use a phrase that implies the man was beyond mistakes, does him a BIG disservice.

Another point that I think some of the folks taking issue with me are not quite getting because their objectivity is clouded by idolatry: it's quite unfair to compare Mosconi -- a 14.1 specialist (to the point of exclusivity) -- with players of today, because players of today have to be generalists. Whereas Mosconi was able to make a living strictly off of 14.1, today's players have to bite the bullet and "live on" rotation pool, with the occasional "treat" to compete in cerebral games like 14.1 and One Pocket. To compare the ability of an exclusive specialist to a generalist is just not right. And not fair, with the "turning over in his grave" kicker. There are many analogies that could be used here, but the one off the top of my head is this: it's roughly analogous to comparing the neural specialties of a brain surgeon, with that of an MD of Internal Medicine. It's just not right. It keeps the sport back, instead of progressing forward.

Thanks for your post, Steve. And yes, perhaps I did make a mistake by questioning the platitudes associated with idolatry. I'm just hoping I opened a door that needed to be opened, to let things air out, even if I was the person to get hit with the initial stench. At least I can hope, right?

-Sean

 

[pdcue]

Dale:

Hit a nerve, I see? And you're missing the point, too. My point with this thread was to call out the old, tired "Mosconi would be rolling over in his grave" hanger-ons and to create a useful discussion about it. It was not to troll or diss Mosconi, yet that's precisely what some are trying to turn this thread into. In fact, you're conveniently demonstrating what I'm talking about with the latter camp. Your notion, "At the risk of repeating my repeating - Willie was the definition of precision, control, and consistency" is old and tired, too -- and not what this thread is about. That's why I hadn't responded to it. And, you're trying to make this personal, too, with the dig about the title of this thread. Sorry, you can cast that bait all you want -- I ain't taking it.

Let's get this straight -- this thread ain't about dissing Mosconi or to troll. It's to try to get to the heart of the matter of the useless comparison of Mosconi to today's players with that gratuitous and tired expression. (Interesting side-note: it seems to be limited to Mosconi, too. Noone says "Mizerak would be turning over in his grave," or "Ralph Greenleaf would be turning over in his grave.") And so far it seems to have worked -- some really great feedback has resulted from both sides.

Oh, and let's get this straight as well -- like anyone that appreciates playing and spectating in this sport, I appreciate a well-executed run just like anyone. My point about the "ugly 100" is targeted specifically at those that foist the beauty of the run over its execution -- as if to say "beauty first, always."

It's almost like, "if you can't make the run beautiful, don't even bother -- run a few, play safe, run a few, play safe." Or,"if you can't play along the lines of Mosconi's patterns and beauty, you shouldn't even be playing our hallowed sport -- very quietly turn around, and walk away from the altar. You don't need to be here." And I know you're not saying that, right Dale?

-Sean

Sorry for impinging on your bubble - but this is all about a fantasy of your own making.

First you construct a few well chosen straw men, then you outsmart them.

Now that's ugly...

If you thought your point was 100 is still 100 - why didn't you say that?

What you did say was that critiuqing the style of current 14.1 players
while invoking Mosconi's name was devoid of validity.

What that tells me is, in fact, you don't understand why his anticipated
negative reaction is so important - and it is sooooo important.


Dale<who knows why it is important>

 

[lfigueroa]

Steve:

Thank you, and of course(!) your viewpoints, pro or con, are welcome here. A tip o' the hat to you for very succinctly pointing this out. What I'm learning here -- and it's a shame -- is that "altar worship" and idolatry can sometimes cloud one's otherwise good judgment and ability to participate in discussions.

Mosconi was a genius. In fact, why did I even have to write that? Isn't it assumed? I'll tell you why. Because those that take issue with me seem to think that, by questioning the overuse (abuse is the correct term, actually) and even applicability of the old/tired/gratuitous "Mosconi would be turning in his grave" in reference to today's players, think that I'm questioning the Great One's legacy himself. Or they're chastising me for "not drinking the Mosconi idolatry Kool-Aid" and even try to put me on the spot with statements as to whether I even saw Mosconi play, or whether I was even alive during his heyday. When that's not even where I was trying to go with the thread.

My point is that the phrase actually HURTS Mosconi's legacy. By continued use of this non-applicable phrase, it actually has the REVERSE effect. It puts Mosconi's achievements and playing ability into the "beyond surreal realm" -- and unfairly. Sort of like those Chuck Norris jokes. The man *did* make mistakes, he *did* execute bad patterns, and they are on film -- as shown in a prior post. So to use a phrase that implies the man was beyond mistakes, does him a BIG disservice.

Another point that I think some of the folks taking issue with me are not quite getting because their objectivity is clouded by idolatry: it's quite unfair to compare Mosconi -- a 14.1 specialist (to the point of exclusivity) -- with players of today, because players of today have to be generalists. Whereas Mosconi was able to make a living strictly off of 14.1, today's players have to bite the bullet and "live on" rotation pool, with the occasional "treat" to compete in cerebral games like 14.1 and One Pocket. To compare the ability of an exclusive specialist to a generalist is just not right. And not fair, with the "turning over in his grave" kicker. There are many analogies that could be used here, but the one off the top of my head is this: it's roughly analogous to comparing the neural specialties of a brain surgeon, with that of an MD of Internal Medicine. It's just not right. It keeps the sport back, instead of progressing forward.

Thanks for your post, Steve. And yes, perhaps I did make a mistake by questioning the platitudes associated with idolatry. I'm just hoping I opened a door that needed to be opened, to let things air out, even if I was the person to get hit with the initial stench. At least I can hope, right?

-Sean

I believe that in almost every human endeavor, there have been, are, and will be certain individuals that, because of their hard work, talent, style, creativity, grace, genius, and ability to excel under pressure, move into a place that puts them far apart from everyone else trying to do the same thing. I have had the opportunity to discuss Mosconi with knowledgeable folks across the country and, almost to a man, they all mention the same things: he made the game look so easy; he was quick and graceful at the table; he always ran at least 100; his cue ball acted like it was possessed by a demon, doing his bidding and relocating itself each shot to within millimeters of where he wanted it to go; and he could power the cue ball through the stack like a hot knife through butter.

During those same years of discussion, I have also had the opportunity to watch most of the great contemporary practitioners of the game and discuss them as well with my fellow aficionados and, maybe not too surprisingly, no one really makes even one of those observations about them...

And so it goes and so it is:

There is an Astaire.

There is a Sinatra.

There is an Ali.

And there is a Mosconi.

That's not idolatry worship, nor does it have anything to do with Kool-Aid. It's just a fact

Lou Figueroa

 

[Steve Lipsky]

I'm still waiting (this being the second thread) for anyone to chime in on the efficiency (or lack thereof) of Willie's 5 ball out posted earlier.

- Steve

 

[sfleinen]

I believe that in almost every human endeavor, there have been, are, and will be certain individuals that, because of their hard work, talent, style, creativity, grace, genius, and ability to excel under pressure, move into a place that puts them far apart from everyone else trying to do the same thing. I have had the opportunity to discuss Mosconi with knowledgeable folks across the country and, almost to a man, they all mention the same things: he made the game look so easy; he was quick and graceful at the table; he always ran at least 100; his cue ball acted like it was possessed by a demon, doing his bidding and relocating itself each shot to within millimeters of where he wanted it to go; and he could power the cue ball through the stack like a hot knife through butter.

During those same years of discussion, I have also had the opportunity to watch most of the great contemporary practitioners of the game and discuss them as well with my fellow aficionados and, maybe not too surprisingly, no one really makes even one of those observations about them...

And so it goes and so it is:

There is an Astaire.

There is a Sinatra.

There is an Ali.

And there is a Mosconi.

That's not idolatry worship, nor does it have anything to do with Kool-Aid. It's just a fact

Lou Figueroa

Lou:

You know I appreciate good, spirited debate, as long as it's kept respectful -- which you and I have never had a problem with. (I've stopped responding to another responder in this thread, because he insists on making things personal, even after it was pointed out to him it wasn't appreciated.)

All the things you point out about Mosconi above are in fact, TRUE:

• he made the game look so easy;
• he was quick and graceful at the table;
• he always ran at least 100;
• his cue ball acted like it was possessed by a demon, doing his bidding and relocating itself each shot to within millimeters of where he wanted it to go;
• he could power the cue ball through the stack like a hot knife through butter.

My question is, what does all this have to do with the continued abuse of the phrase, "Mosconi would be turning over in his grave" in reference to the style of play of today's players?

Do we say "Astaire would be turning over in his grave" in reference to today's choreographed dancers? No. (In fact, if Fred were still around and saw what was being done today, he'd probably want to be part of it!)

Do we say "Sinatra would be turning over in his grave" in reference to, say, the crooning of Michael Buble? No.

Thankfully, Ali is still with us, but after he unfortunately passes, do you think we'll say "Ali would be turning over in his grave" in reference to the fighting chops of the heavyweight champions of tomorrow? I definitely say NO. Although Ali was known as a mouth (and Howard Cosell certainly exploited it to help sell Ali's image), privately he held the highest respect for the champions that succeeded him. This was captured in an interview I saw on the show "20/20" when Ali was still lucid and capable of clear speech. He admitted that he admired Evander Holyfield at the time.

So while we'll [rightfully] put Mosconi in the same "super category" as the aforementioned icons, I stand by my notion that the "Mosconi would be rolling in his grave" insult is entirely unjust to not only the 14.1 players of today (for the specialist/generalist reasons I already mentioned), but also to Mosconi himself. It's doing him a grave injustice.

-Sean