The Obvious Difference Between 1980's 9-Ball and Today's 9-Ball

[liakos]

The faster cloth also affects breaking strategy. With a slow nap wool cloth a soft break probably doesn't have nearly as much benefit even when using a template.

Me personally, I disagree. I love playing on slow nap cloth! As long as the rails play true, the template rack makes the game MUCH easier as long as you know what you're doing!

I'm a B-B+ player on simonis and can beat the ghost maybe 50% of the time. On nap cloth it's at least 60% of the time!

Also, my straight pool high runs a couple of 80's was done on nap cloth! I just feel the balls much better on nap cloth! You may be correct for the majority but I'm definitely going to favor the nap

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

Stats would prove their inferiority compared to today's top players, but just look at the strokes on most of them... and some of the basic shots hit poorly. Grady's pre-shot routine was reminiscent of a teen banger at times and some of his shots were about as bad. Davenport's pull across shots were equally as amateurish and Earl wasn't too flash either.

SVB and Appleton would roll through that field like lead through water.

That said, the production was top notch and better viewing than anything out of the US in years.

You are smokin to much stuff if you think SVB or Appleton would have rolled through a late 80s and 90s Earl at 9-Ball, or even a 70s-80s Sigel. Tough enough to beat a 2015 "old" Earl lol. And I see no difference in the stats in matches. I seen perfect matches played back then. National TV changes ones play quite a bit as well. Todays players wouldn't know that heh.

And Grady was not a top 9-Ball player. He has more of a Straight Pool stroke.

 

[bdorman]

Originally Posted by Johnnyt
IMO today's top players play better and are smarter.Johnnyt

So, have any proof of this?

I. M. O. stands for In My Opinion, so I guess his proof is that 1) it's an opinion and 2) it's his.

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

Originally Posted by Johnnyt
IMO today's top players play better and are smarter.Johnnyt



I. M. O. stands for In My Opinion, so I guess his proof is that 1) it's an opinion and 2) it's his.

And that it will remain. An opinion backed up by nothing.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You are smokin to much stuff if you think SVB or Appleton would have rolled through a late 80s and 90s Earl at 9-Ball, or even a 70s-80s Sigel. Tough enough to beat a 2015 "old" Earl lol. And I see no difference in the stats in matches. I seen perfect matches played back then. National TV changes ones play quite a bit as well. Todays players wouldn't know that heh.

And Grady was not a top 9-Ball player. He has more of a Straight Pool stroke.

I watched the whole thing, did you? Did you pick up on Davenport's sideway pull across shots and the dozens of poorly hit pots and fluffed positional shots?

 

[poolguy4u]

.


Simonis Cloth and fast tables have been around for a long time. Back around 1985 Simonis Cloth was used at the Clyde Childress Memorial tournament and for me...it was like playing on glass. Way too fast for me. I was lost on every shot. I went two and out and left town fast.:frown:

 

[SouthernDraw]

Nappy cloth required a strong stroke to move the cue around. Even more so if the cloth was backed with rubber. Also the cloth would ball up causing the cue ball to roll off course. Especially at the end of the roll. Grooves wore along the rails and the preferred break route. And because the cloth was thick everyone jumped with a full cue. No need for short jump cues.

Also spin off the rails would really throw the cue ball to extremes. If the object ball was on the rail near the corner pocket and you had a good angle, you could loop the cue ball around (top-right) and come down the table on a tighter angle that you just can't do with tightly worsted cloth.

I think Trudeau's tour was a return to this type cloth. That's when the power stroke guys jumped on the scene. Hillbilly, Nevel, Basavich, etc.

 

[genomachino]

Laminated shafts have much to do with it.

I've been watching some of the YouTube matches put up by a fellow AZB poster. This particular match was Nick Varner vs. Dave Bowman. The entire complexion of 9-ball is different now than it was then and I feel the reason is the speed of Simonis 860 cloth.

1) These guys hit every shot with draw. Today follow is the cue ball spin of choice.
2) The cloth being used in these old matches is shag rug slow. These guys needed stroke to move the ball around the table. Today you go three rails with no problem.
3) Their safety play is relatively weak compared to modern players. Efren changed the game forever with his ability to get out of anything and put his opponent in jail.

Incredible how different the game technically is today from what it was then .

With a laminated shaft you can be more accurate with follow. With a regular wood shaft it is very difficult to hit a ball fairly hard with top English and be accurate. The deflection is much wider and the shaft pushes the cue ball too much before it starts rolling.
The laminated shaft has turned my game to almost half follow.
After not playing for 9 years from 1999 to 2008 I couldn't believe how many players were playing so much better.
The laminated shafts changed the game forever..........

 

[LHP5]

1.) Definitely the break. Pro's and amateurs alike definitely hammered away at the break unlike today's game. For a good example look at David Howard's break or the Earl Strickland of old's break. Corey Deuel broke the game.....how many pro's can say they actually broke a game? That's impressive.

2.) Most definitely the game is played alot safer than it used to be. 9 ball took the spotlight away from 14.1 because it was faster and more offensive, better suited for the viewing audience. Defense has always been the smarter choice but I guess it is considered boring? I don't agree with that, but it is what it is. Defense will probably win you more games and since there is no audience nowadays.....why not play safe, right?

 

[caff3in3]

I think anyone who believes today's players are much better should watch the "color of money" match between earl strickland and efren reyes in their prime. A race to 120 for $100,000 winner take all.

It is well worth a watch even if it doesn't change your mind! The whole thing is on YouTube. I think there are 9 one hour segments.

 

[Colin Colenso]

With a laminated shaft you can be more accurate with follow. With a regular wood shaft it is very difficult to hit a ball fairly hard with top English and be accurate. The deflection is much wider and the shaft pushes the cue ball too much before it starts rolling.
The laminated shaft has turned my game to almost half follow.
After not playing for 9 years from 1999 to 2008 I couldn't believe how many players were playing so much better.
The laminated shafts changed the game forever..........

PJ could break a finger in his rush to the keyboard when he reads this. I put an eyebrow out I rolled my eyes so far!

 

[336Robin]

One Pocket

I agree Robin, in that the break plays such a disproportional factor in the game... this is at least as true in 8-ball.

Haven't played much one pocket, but watched probably 100 hours of the game with interest. While it's not a break dominated game, in line with snooker and traditional billiard games, I think the game weighs in favor of the tactician too much over the shot-maker.

I've developed a highly offensive game that reduces the impact of the break, eliminates safety and encourages shot-making. Under the banner of Stroke Pool, there are versions for Snooker, 8-ball sets and rotation. Essentially, to continue a visit, 2 rails, in addition to a pot called must be hit. Not doing so gives Ball In Hand to the incoming player. All versions award points per ball, not win only points. It forces creative play and advanced stroke making, which I think we need to promote the game in this X-treme sports generation.

In a way Colin you might be correct but in One Pocket you cannot survive on safety play alone. The individual skills in One Pocket each add up to the sum of the player forcing him to strive to excel in each area making for a very well rounded player. At a point you will be presented with a shot in which you have to calculate its worth. The ability to assess possible damage vs. your ability means you have to come with something to execute and when you are shooting your money there is no purer form of correctness found.

Your game sounds very interesting

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

I watched the whole thing, did you? Did you pick up on Davenport's sideway pull across shots and the dozens of poorly hit pots and fluffed positional shots?

Absolutely, I watched the whole thing when they originally aired as well. It is probably the worst I have seen Davenport play. But it was the day. Nothing to do at all with how Davenport really plays. Davenport's game of that era would have no problem at all going a long way in a US Open today.

 

[Colin Colenso]

In a way Colin you might be correct but in One Pocket you cannot survive on safety play alone. The individual skills in One Pocket each add up to the sum of the player forcing him to strive to excel in each area making for a very well rounded player. At a point you will be presented with a shot in which you have to calculate its worth. The ability to assess possible damage vs. your ability means you have to come with something to execute and when you are shooting your money there is no purer form of correctness found.

Your game sounds very interesting

I love the challenge of potting 8 balls into one corner and how it necessitates some great potting and positional work... and some great banking. I'm pretty sure I'd make some great outs and love it, but get frustrated and all the grinding in between.

A decent game, but I've seen too many 1 hour + games that convince me that it is a nightmare for TV producers and not likely to attract viewers.

Colin

 

[Nick B]

PJ could break a finger in his rush to the keyboard when he reads this. I put an eyebrow out I rolled my eyes so far!

Ditto. This is completely unsupportable nonsense. Top spin has more deflection than draw? Note straight draw or top has zero deflection/squirt.

Nick

 

[Colin Colenso]

Absolutely, I watched the whole thing when they originally aired as well. It is probably the worst I have seen Davenport play. But it was the day. Nothing to do at all with how Davenport really plays. Davenport's game of that era would have no problem at all going a long way in a US Open today.

I'm not out to bag the guy, but you won't see any of the top 20 of the world ever flinching across their aligned shot as he did about 10 times.

I'm sure he could run 5 packs and look great, many can if the break is friendly. Any half decent player can win a race to 9 against anyone if the breaks and rolls go their way.

Now Buddy Hall, he had a nice stroke. Might have made an 80 at snooker.