His opinion too
I’ve spoke with him for hours about this topic.
He’s right.
Best
Fatboy
-<——-not a fanboy just keeping it real. Even if I didn’t like Mike I’d still have the same opinion. The greats are the greats.Then vs. Now (One More Thread)
- Thread starter BasementDweller
- Start date
I’ve spoke with him for hours about this topic.
He’s right.
Best
Fatboy
-<——-not a fanboy just keeping it real. Even if I didn’t like Mike I’d still have the same opinion. The greats are the greats.Tyler Styer
He's an interesting player to consider in comparison to yesterday. How would he do in the 80s and 90s? He's got a crushing break and shoots straight. I'd say the top guns would have had a little on him in the moving department, but that break would be tough.
I think he would do quite well and he's nowhere near the top tier of today's players. Maybe he'll get there.
Actually now that I think of it, it may benefit someone like Tyler to play/practice more on buckets. He plays like someone that's always practicing on super tight equipment, which isn't always good for a player. But I digress...
He's an interesting player to consider in comparison to yesterday. How would he do in the 80s and 90s? He's got a crushing break and shoots straight. I'd say the top guns would have had a little on him in the moving department, but that break would be tough.
I think he would do quite well and he's nowhere near the top tier of today's players. Maybe he'll get there.
Actually now that I think of it, it may benefit someone like Tyler to play/practice more on buckets. He plays like someone that's always practicing on super tight equipment, which isn't always good for a player. But I digress...
Last edited:
I'm with you on numero uno. At least that's what my eyes are telling me. I'd guess closer to 770-780 for the very top guys. So probably close to 40-50 down from the top dogs.
You're probably right about #2 in Spanish too.
What are Filler and Gorst doing that you've never seen before?
Having the total package at such a young age. They both cue the ball with the precision really only seen in the snooker world, while at the same time having top-notch tactical and overall mental games. I'd say that pair is a half step above where the pair of Shaw and SVB were at the same age.
I haven't even mentioned the Asian players but I haven't forgotten about them either.
Feels like this is the proof against whatever you're thinking about Sigel. Tyler has some of the best mechanics on tour, but he's not the best on tour by a longshot. That tells me that having great mechanics and ideal stroking isn't what makes the champion (even in the tight pocket era) considering players like Shane, Sky, Justin generally would wax Tyler. It's a whole lot of other things. So saying that Sigel's not-perfect mechanics would be suspect in today's tight pocket world... you've just derailed your argument. His mechanics were already pretty good, and he had the whole lot of other things.
I literally have said that a champion in any era would be a champion in any other era. Because what makes up a champion is a whole lot of things ,but mostly the 4 D's.
I agree with the basic premise of the thread that the standard in the nine-ball era is at an all-time high. That said, there is nobody in today's game that plays better position than Buddy Hall. There is nobody in today's game that is as good a strategist as Nick Varner or Efren Reyes. Nobody today shows command of as many two-way shots as Efren Reyes or Rudolfo Luat.
Today's players shoot straighter than all but a few of the last generation of players but are a little less creative. Guys like Sigel, Varner, Lassiter, Strickland and Reyes would have been giants of the game in any era, for they knew how to adapt to equipment and playing conditions.
Today's players understand the break better than the last generation and they run the racks with greater ease. As we so often discuss here on the forum, though, players can only be fairly judged against their contemporaries. Those who consistently prevail over their contemporaries are the great ones.
Is Filler better than Sigel or Varner? The answer is that there's no way to tell.
Today's players shoot straighter than all but a few of the last generation of players but are a little less creative. Guys like Sigel, Varner, Lassiter, Strickland and Reyes would have been giants of the game in any era, for they knew how to adapt to equipment and playing conditions.
Today's players understand the break better than the last generation and they run the racks with greater ease. As we so often discuss here on the forum, though, players can only be fairly judged against their contemporaries. Those who consistently prevail over their contemporaries are the great ones.
Is Filler better than Sigel or Varner? The answer is that there's no way to tell.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Forgive my ignorance... what are the 4 D's?
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Thanks!
I didn't derail my argument. You just derailed the argument you think I was making. Plus you may be making a logical fallacy. Saying that technique improves as equipment demands increase, is not the same thing as saying -- employing great technique will necessarily make you a great player. I admittedly do believe it's a large part of the equation but certainly not the only part. In regards to Tyler, his technique is good but he lacks the fluidity that the others mentioned possess. I hope he can keep working and end up there.
We don't really disagree about much here. I think Sigel is an all-time great. I also think he's one of the past greats that would find a way to be great today.
Where we disagree is -- I don't think his technique stands the test of time and I think the footage supports this view. I get that many don't care about that, as they point to his wins and I respect that view a great deal. Way more than I used to actually. I'm just a pool nerd, who's comparing the skills and technique of modern players to those who came before them.
For a more stark, recent comparison you could simply look at what has happened in the Philippines. The invading generation was led by a bunch of loosy-goosy, unorthodox cueists. They were certainly great, but what do we see coming out of the Philippines now? Much more orthodox, rigid, non-flashy cueing technique. Why? Most likely because it leads to more consistent, better play.
The great and powerful SJM has spoken -- so I'll shut up. Just kidding -- about shutting up.
Thanks for chiming in. Since you've seen so much of this up close and in person, what do you make of the evolution of pool fundamentals? I'm nearly certain that if you sat down someone who knew nothing about pool and had them compare generations, they would most definitely see the drastic change in technique over the course of the past 40 years.
At this point, I struggle accepting anyone's view of the past when it contrasts with what my eyes see when I watch old footage. Everyone says, the old tables were so slow. Then I watch old match after match on fast tables and wonder. I know Buddy Hall is referenced often in the cue ball control conversations, yet when I watch his old matches I see him making his fair share of mistakes. If the conversation turns to 14.1 we here about how much better so and so was, but yet Shaw runs +700 and makes it look like every top pro could run a 1000. Bottom line for me is the game has matured and all the skills have improved.
Except maybe...
There is one skill I haven't seen equaled on the pool table and that's Efren kicking game. He has maybe the most accurate nickname in the game, and will always be the one and only Magician.
Last edited:
And Fedor averaged around 950 with tighter pockets on a 10' table.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember when my client spoke of slow tables he was under extreme duress at that point in his life. So do not judge my client too harshly in regards to his slow table argument. Also let us not get too hung up on the very minute details of this argument. Instead let us celebrate all the finer points that he made.
Okay you got me -- that's a slow one.
Yes, the fundamentals today are much sounder and that's why for every straight shooter of the 1980s, there are five today.
In truth, Buddy's most dominant period was in the 1970's when matches weren't being recorded yet. I have often bemoaned the lack of footage of Buddy at his best. It was in the 1970s that he spotted and beat Sigel in Shrevesport, Louisiana. When he won what was probably his most celebrated title, the 1998 US Open 9ball, he was already 53 years old. Buddy was the first maestro in nine ball position play and his clock system was the foundation for all position play concepts that followed.
Yes. The standard is higher than it ever was at 14.1 but to suggest that just anyone could run even 500 today is nonsense. The three straightest shooters in the world today are surely Gorst, Filler and Shaw and certainly all of them can do it on the loose equipment typically used in high run competitions. In days of attempts at the Legends of 14.1 on loose equipment, SVB made it into the 300s but no further and the same is true of straight pooler extraordinaire Ruslan Chinakhov.
At the Derby City 14.1 challenge from 2009-2018, during which qualifying runs were attempted all day for four days every year by the stars of the game on pro specs equipment, nobody ever ran 300. That's 40 days of qualifying attempts without a 300-ball run. Filler did once manage 285.
Yes, nobody has ever kicked like Efren, but I think Efren's defense was also head and shoulders above everybody that has ever played rotation games. Also, in general tactical conceptualization, good luck finding an equal of Nick Varner in today's crop not named Pagulayan.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Too far? Only slightly. Earl has, without a doubt, the purest arm swing I've ever seen in pool. Earl has a set it and forget it type stroke in which despite looking like there is a lot going on, his cue delivery is as pure as can be and he doesn't actually have to do all that much to unleash it. The free wheeling stroke Earl displayed in 'the color of money' race to 120 vs reyes the first few sessions is the pinnacle of technique imo. Yes, they were playing on buckets, but man that is the way pool should be...caroms, kicks, banks, galore. Pool isn't snooker....you're supposed to get out and get out a lot at the highest level and still enjoy the game at a middling amateur level, making pool more of a puzzle game, not a test of 'who makes a better robot'.
People have their preferences. U prefer top shelf mechanics, I prefer top shelf flow and applications of natural movement (which applies very high level mechanics, just not broadly known ones). As a specialist in motor-learning/motor-control, having spent literally thousands of hours analyzing the ins and outs of a variety of sports for degrees as well as just for the fun of it, to my rather trained eye, there is not a more pure delivery of the cue I have seen.
Give me prime Earl to take a shot for with my life on the line over Shaw, Filler, Gorst, or even Ronnie. Obv we are splitting hairs with these giants of the game, but Earl is as much a physical genius as he is one on the table. Federer may not end up considered the GOAT in tennis by everyone, but his style, flow, natural movement are just so beautiful u can't help but marvel at his game. To me, that is Earl for pool....minus all the class lol. He will remain in the GOAT conversation, sure, but not get the nod from most. But as far as his cuing goes...when he's in gear and that stroke is let out, there's nothing like it.