The Old Like the old and the young like the young

Johnnyt

Johnnyt

Burn all jump cues
Silver Member
Have you ever noticed that whenever a sport (pool included) tries to compare players from a few decades ago with todays young guns all you get for the most part is the older guys saying the players in the past were better and the young guys saying the young pros of today are better? I'm an old guy and saw many of the past greats play and I can see that if you could put 20 of the top old and 20 of the top young players in a round robin 10 ball tournament that mostly the young guns wound be standing at the end. Johnnyt
 
Old

Im not sure if I am old yet or not guess it would be by who was telling the story.

I agree pool is like every other sport. I mean who would even try to say Larry Bird or Magic Johnson could even carry Kobe's jock strap?

It is the same with the new pool players. The new players break way better, play much better safes and shoot straighter.

I mean do you really think Earl would have won 5 US Open titles against Orcullo, Busty, Shane, Souquet, Moore, Francisco, Morra , Immomen, Feijen, Pagulayan, Dechaine, Duel, Appleton, Morris, Putnum, Archer, and the list just goes on.

Get real they wouldn't stand a chance against the new players.
 
Klink said:
Im not sure if I am old yet or not guess it would be by who was telling the story.

I agree pool is like every other sport. I mean who would even try to say Larry Bird or Magic Johnson could even carry Kobe's jock strap?

It is the same with the new pool players. The new players break way better, play much better safes and shoot straighter.

I mean do you really think Earl would have won 5 US Open titles against Orcullo, Busty, Shane, Souquet, Moore, Francisco, Morra , Immomen, Feijen, Pagulayan, Dechaine, Duel, Appleton, Morris, Putnum, Archer, and the list just goes on.

Get real they wouldn't stand a chance against the new players.
Click to expand...


Yes I do. The real question isn't who is/was better, its who accomplished the most in their prime. You will never be able to pit Willie Hoppe against Orcullo, the only thing you can do is look at their prime, their accomplishments and their reputation. You can't put someone new against someone old because the new guys are still developing their history. Maybe they are the best player ever... for 1 year, so what, there are others that played at a high level for 30 years or more. Look at what they have done.

You should also remember how the game had changed, you put some of these new players in a 2 push out rule set and pit them against Keith McCready in his prime.......fo-get-aboud-it!
 
All you have to see is how many times most of the 1970's and 1980's players missed compared to now. You miss one ball now at the top level and you might lose the set. Johnnyt
 
Cdryden said:
Yes I do. The real question isn't who is/was better, its who accomplished the most in their prime. You will never be able to pit Willie Hoppe against Orcullo, the only thing you can do is look at their prime, their accomplishments and their reputation. You can't put someone new against someone old because the new guys are still developing their history. Maybe they are the best player ever... for 1 year, so what, there are others that played at a high level for 30 years or more. Look at what they have done.

You should also remember how the game had changed, you put some of these new players in a 2 push out rule set and pit them against Keith McCready in his prime.......fo-get-aboud-it!
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say but wouldn't you agree the players today are

In better shape?

Break better?

Play better safes?
 
The increase in average breaks at snooker proves this point quite well, I think. Modern equipment helps, but there's no doubt the standard of player today is far better than it's ever been.

It's human nature to improve with each generation.
 
Klink said:
I agree pool is like every other sport. I mean who would even try to say Larry Bird or Magic Johnson could even carry Kobe's jock strap?
Click to expand...

As a lifelong basketball fan, I would. In a heartbeat.

In fact, I think Kobe would be embarrassed by either Bird or Magic. Badly. His defense is lazy & ham-fisted, his passing is next to non-existent, his ball handling is suspect at best...either one of those guys would make a fool out of Kobe. You might be able to compare Kobe to someone like Dominique, but Bird and Magic both could not only score but had other skillsets besides. Kobe shouldn't even be in the same discussion with either of those guys. Jus' sayin'. :)
 
Klink said:
I agree with what you say but wouldn't you agree the players today are

In better shape? YES

Break better? mmm not sure, maybe

Play better safes? NO
Click to expand...

Players today are better informed though, for the most part. I can agree that players today are more disciplined on average than the players from the 70's and 80's but I would argue that they don't have the heart of those players.
It's a very hard thing to quantify, obviously both eras have their strong points. But I would compare careers until both parties have actually had one!
 
accu stats scores

accu-stat scores are accu-stat scores (then and now) and I have not seen an increase in 1.000 scores... they seems pretty similiar (then and now) .... might be a slight increase in the overall Tournment ave. but not a big diff. in the average of the 3 or 4 finishers.... so fields are deeper but top tier about the same...
 
Kobe

Spider1 said:
As a lifelong basketball fan, I would. In a heartbeat.

In fact, I think Kobe would be embarrassed by either Bird or Magic. Badly. His defense is lazy & ham-fisted, his passing is next to non-existent, his ball handling is suspect at best...either one of those guys would make a fool out of Kobe. You might be able to compare Kobe to someone like Dominique, but Bird and Magic both could not only score but had other skillsets besides. Kobe shouldn't even be in the same discussion with either of those guys. Jus' sayin'. :)
Click to expand...

You may just be right!:grin-square:
 
Cdryden said:
Players today are better informed though, for the most part. I can agree that players today are more disciplined on average than the players from the 70's and 80's but I would argue that they don't have the heart of those players.
It's a very hard thing to quantify, obviously both eras have their strong points. But I would compare careers until both parties have actually had one!
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to compare careers. SVB just came on the scene and can't be judged on his career yet.

But SVB did get in the finals of all 3 DCC events which is a first ever.

I was just saying if you put one of the older players in their prime against SVB the way he shoots now SVB would win hands down.

As far as Accu-stat scores go they played mostly 8' tables with huge pockets.
 
Pool isn't a purely physical sport like running, or even a mostly physical sport like football or baseball, so the "people always improve" argument is kind of suspect. People physically evolve over time, and even more important: physical training methods have improved greatly. As an example look at the famous "Four Horsemen" backfield of Notre Dame back in the early 20's: their fullback Elmer Layden was 5-11 and weighed 162 pounds! He'd be dwarfed by anyone on a college field anywhere today, even the kickers. Hell, maybe some of the cheerleaders. That's physical progress and training progress.

But how much does that apply to pool? Has eye hand coordination evolved? Has break speed gone up? Has strategy-formulation ability evolved? I am not sure, but I doubt it.


Edit: interesting discussion in this thread by the way. Fun to read, cheers.
 
Interesting bench racing and making fantasy matches. In the end nobody will be right.

Personally, my favorite players tend to be older players. Mostly because I simply know them better and some of them I have played. Also, there is a certain amount of nostalgia.

It's not just that the equipment changed, the entire world has changed. Television, internet, air travel....all have a huge impact on such things as are being discussed here.

As in any discipline, the closer you get to the "top" the finer the differences become. It's mildly interesting to try to compare....but in the end it's just mental masturbation and I couldn't get passionate about such a thing.

I will say that it is exciting when legends play, and I love to see it. In the end the outcome generally does not mean that one was better than the other overall, it only means he was better on that day, on that occasion anyway.

They are all great and I respect and envy their accomplishments.
 
Spider1 said:
As a lifelong basketball fan, I would. In a heartbeat.

In fact, I think Kobe would be embarrassed by either Bird or Magic. Badly. His defense is lazy & ham-fisted, his passing is next to non-existent, his ball handling is suspect at best...either one of those guys would make a fool out of Kobe. You might be able to compare Kobe to someone like Dominique, but Bird and Magic both could not only score but had other skillsets besides. Kobe shouldn't even be in the same discussion with either of those guys. Jus' sayin'. :)
Click to expand...

Tap, tap, tap, oh hell yes, TAP!

Larry and magic were another level, only reached by Michael Jordan.

Kobe is pretty damned great, but a level below those three. Lebron hopes to reach that level, but likely never will, despite being the most physically gifted of all of them.
 
8 ft TABLES?!?!?!

As far as Accu-stat scores go they played mostly 8' tables with huge pockets
Click to expand...

WTF!!! .... When were "most" pro tourneys on 8 ft tables?? Hello... earth calling!!!

Oh and if SIZE matters THEN lets go back to Greenleaf and the 10 fts... WAIT don't have too :wink: a 50 YEAR OLD kicked SVB on a 10 ft'er...

Again... fields are deeper ... top finishers about the same... 8 footers (OMG)
 
I am 32 and I feel if you gave the players of the 80's and 90's like Efren, Buddy Varner, and the like and gave them the same playing conditions and the same equipment I will take the old guys.
I would like the see the guys that play one try and move the cue ball on nap cloth and with a heavy cue ball.
 
First of all, in every sport that is measued by a clock, the new generation always beats the old generation, and nobody would try to debate that, because the clock doesnt lie. Yet, in team sports like basketball, baseball, etc, or any sport that is measured subjectively, some people always want to romantically believe the older players were better. They were not. Magic was great, no question, but he was also playing other players from the 1980's. He would have to really up his game to play against today's (clearly bigger & faster) players. Babe Ruth (also great) but the pitchers of his time were not. Babe never faced closers who pitch 95+ mph.

Back to pool, not really a physical game, so being more athletic doesnt matter. However, the "information" edge clearly goes to today's players, so as a group they should be better. However, you will always have standout superstars in every generation.

( Lastly, Magic AND Bird together could not guard Kobe and stop him from dunking! )
 
I believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in another era.

If Alfredo de Oro was born in 1993 instead of 1863, people would be saying
"I can't believe how good this 19 year old kid plays!"
..he would be playing with a better cue, better balls, better cloth. and
better rubber.

But most importantly, he would have access to a far greater body of
billiard knowledge.

I recall Ronnie Allen watching a young player at 1-pocket and saying
"See that shot he just played...it took me ten years to learn that."
Well...that kid knew that shot BECAUSE players like Allen discovered it.

The game advances on the shoulders of great players.
 
I'm 28 and would take the old guys over the young guys if all things were equal. If you take the top 5 of today and put them up against the top 5 "old" players I don't think the new guys would stand a chance. The fact that one of the "old" guys in Busty has the one new guy people say could beat all the old players in Shanes number says it all to me. Busty is in his 50's and past his prime and Shane cannot get him in the long races. Busty at his best wasn't as good as 3-5 other older players like Efren, Earl, Parica, Hall, and possibly a couple more. Shane is in his prime and can't beat an old guy past his prime. How does that equal better? I think for the most part that elite level is no better then it was 20-30 years ago, I do think there is a higher volume of strong players but I don't think the elite level is any higher.
 
Johnnyt said:
Have you ever noticed that whenever a sport (pool included) tries to compare players from a few decades ago with todays young guns all you get for the most part is the older guys saying the players in the past were better and the young guys saying the young pros of today are better? I'm an old guy and saw many of the past greats play and I can see that if you could put 20 of the top old and 20 of the top young players in a round robin 10 ball tournament that mostly the young guns wound be standing at the end. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

I agree that the young guns today have reached the stratosphere in rotation games.

However, it depends which old guys they would be playing. Looking back to the 1950's or 1960's, I agree playing 9 or 10 ball, but straight pool, the game of choice back then, the young guys wouldn't have a chance. .

Looking to 20 years ago - then I think we're talking a disadvantage to today's young guns due to the depth of field. Nobody would line up to play Earl or Johnny or Efren or Buddy or Sigel or Rempe in their prime.

Shane would play any of them, but not many others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top