Todays players would rob previous gen. players

xianmacx

xianmacx

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ok, now that I got your attention, I have some questions about the level of play from past generations. For example the 80's.

disclaimer: these are all my observations and just want to see what you guys have to say.


I have been watching a handful of matches from the mid 80's (9 ball and one pocket) and it seems that the game was so much more "freewheeling" back then. Very few safes were played in these nineball matches. Alot of hap-hazard shots/banks in the finals of big tournaments. Players would just jump up and try to backcut a shot and throw the cueball 6 rails in hopes of getting shape. It seems to me that the precise, technicians of the game today would totally dominate those past players. Now dont take this as a knock to the players in the past because levels of competition are what causes progression. Back then the loose freewheeling style was still worthy of the finals in big tournaments.

I guess I'm asking everyone if they agree that the level of play has come WAY up in the last 20 years.

Please keep in mind these are just my observations and I'm not trying to start a fight about ronnie vs efren. lol

Ian
 
I think when it comes to 9 ball, yes. The players today have access to so much good stuff in books and mostly on film!

In one pocket, I am not so sure.

One thing I will say is this.. Since everyone and their mother can run out, today's top players have become excellent at the strategic part of the game.

Back in the day, the game was played on slower cloth, so you could dominate other players just by having a better stroke.

Nowadays, it is not like that. Corey shooting ONE circus draw shot in a match is pretty much enough to ensure he wins ONE game. It's no guarantee he will dominate his opponent, even if he has twice the stroke..

Russ
 
That is an excellent point about the whole stroke thing. Back then the earls and keiths didn't have to even think about playing conservative as the competition could not run out as well on the slow equiptment.

Even one pocket though....I watch about 2 hours of the "world one pocket championship" with ronnie and Danny D. Both players were shooting sucker shots. one shot in particular, Danny D shoots a cross corner combo bank and if he doesn't hit it perfect, ronnie gets a duck cross corner. Just seems like they made ALOT more errors.
 
I don't think many of todays players would like Buddy Hall in his prime (just to name one). A lot of the players you saw on TV were not in their prime. There were a ton of guys around in the 1950's- 1970's that would do just as well today.

Today you see players on TV and on the Internet all the time. Most players of the day didn't WANT their picture or name flashed around,so not many people knew who they were or what speed they played at.

I can't think of any sport or game that the players haven't got better over the years. With better tables, cues, and training of today, they would have to be better. But in pool I don't believe there is much difference in the players of old compared to the players of today. Johnnyt
 
xianmacx said:
Ok, now that I got your attention, I have some questions about the level of play from past generations. For example the 80's.

disclaimer: these are all my observations and just want to see what you guys have to say.


I have been watching a handful of matches from the mid 80's (9 ball and one pocket) and it seems that the game was so much more "freewheeling" back then. Very few safes were played in these nineball matches. Alot of hap-hazard shots/banks in the finals of big tournaments. Players would just jump up and try to backcut a shot and throw the cueball 6 rails in hopes of getting shape. It seems to me that the precise, technicians of the game today would totally dominate those past players. Now dont take this as a knock to the players in the past because levels of competition are what causes progression. Back then the loose freewheeling style was still worthy of the finals in big tournaments.

I guess I'm asking everyone if they agree that the level of play has come WAY up in the last 20 years.

Please keep in mind these are just my observations and I'm not trying to start a fight about ronnie vs efren. lol

Ian
Click to expand...

This won't be popular, but I'll agree that the level of play has risen dramaticly, but ,,,not here in the states. The level of play in other countries still baffles and amazes me and continues to get better and better. IMO, the players in the US just don't fade the heat as well as our players of the past.

Sure, I agree that equipment is much better and also agree that you don't need nearly the stroke needed 25 years ago. So much though changed when the rules were changed from tow shot shot-out to one foul. This rule cahnged everything and made some very popular players out of some who I feel would have been shortsops otherwise. The alternating break has become an equalizer as well.

It is stillmy opinion that Buddy is the best 9 ball player to have come from the US. If we take a good look at the race to 25 Earl and Efren played a few years ago, there is no way Efren would have overcome that lead or the momentum Buddy would have eventually found playing three days on the same table. And yes, I feel Buddy played that much better than Efren ever has.

Changes are inevitable and we must adapt and cahnge with them. Players of the past seemed to play with more inspiration than todays and that can be blamed on lots of things. I would have liked to see Jesse Owens and Bob Hayes race, Or Wilt vs. Kareem, and I still feel Jim Brown is the best running back I ever saw. Things cahnge and we will never know. Still, I don't believe there is anyone from anywhere who could have stood toe to toe with Buddy for three straight days in a race to 125, 25-30 years ago. But, as Dennis Miller says, "that is just my opinion, I could be wrong"!
 
hard to say

Players are playing better, playing against better competition on better equipment. A tongue twister of a sentence if there ever was one but I think that if you took the top ten players of today and hauled them back seventy-five years or so they would be crushed by the top ten of that day. Likewise I think the top ten of that older generation would be crushed by the players of today playing under today's conditions.

What I don't think is that there is anything intrinsically better about one generation's players. Had Efren been born fifty years earlier he would still have been a monster on the table. Had the true greats of yesteryear been born twenty-thirty years ago they would still be giants of the game. People can only truly be measured against the competition and equipment of the day. Anybody want to try playing with clay balls? Every ball was a different size, shape, and weight! I have played on deep cloth and in poorly lit rooms, both of these things have a tremendous impact on play as does inconsistent cushions and cushions were much more inconsistent a few generations ago.

I think we have to respect what every person has done in their day. "Best ever" can never be settled. As a general statement, today's players are more knowledgeable in many respects however the old players had great knowledge in areas where knowledge is no longer required and were much more adaptable and better at learning on the fly. Which characteristics are more important at the moment depends on the equipment being played on.

Hu
 
xianmacx said:
That is an excellent point about the whole stroke thing. Back then the earls and keiths didn't have to even think about playing conservative as the competition could not run out as well on the slow equiptment.

Even one pocket though....I watch about 2 hours of the "world one pocket championship" with ronnie and Danny D. Both players were shooting sucker shots. one shot in particular, Danny D shoots a cross corner combo bank and if he doesn't hit it perfect, ronnie gets a duck cross corner. Just seems like they made ALOT more errors.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is because I'm an oldtimer myself, but playing for money, Keith would be robbing any of todays American players and most of the others except for the top Filipino's, and that would be too close to call. As far as tournament play, the same goes for Earl. These guys just don't seem to run as many racks. Playing Keith or Earl, they would be spending more time in the chair and that would also hurt their game. As far as one pocket, in their prime, Ronnie would be giving all but Efren weight, and Danny would give them all they wanted even. Just an old pool scuffs humble opinion. John Henderson
 
Thanks for all the replies, this is exactly the opinions I wanted.

I would agree with the "born in" statement. The champions of each generation would ALSO be top of the game had they been born in other generations. They have the talent, and the competition in that era would have pulled them to the top.

This is also relevant to the shot selection you may see in old one pocket matches. The pros from back then would easily "adapt" to the current level of shot selection to compete with the efrens/joyners.

Either way you look at it, I would much rather watch the old matches and hear danny Dee mouth off with Ronnie allen. Btw what year was that world one pocket challenge?
 
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I first explored how nostalgia clouds the mind when I got into musclecars. Who among us hasn't had a car in the past that was the greatest car ever made? We all have a slightly skewed memory of how good that car was. The reality is, evolution (even among cars) is a natural thing. We don't want to knock our memories from their pedestal, but if we are honest with ourselves...we must.

I still hear arguments about how a new Viper or Corvette is no match for a 427 Cobra from the 60's. The reality is, both new cars are superior in about every aspect...handling (the result of better tire tech as well as suspension tech), ride (same story), creature comforts (egads! you want a/c?), economy (egads! you want to get something over 6 mpg), and NVH (egads! you don't want your ears to rings for hours after riding in the car?). Is that all a knock on the Cobra? No, it is esteemed because it was without peer...in its time. Does the march of time erode its value? No, it remains highly valued because it was without peer...in its time. It represents a benchmark.

Now, back to pool. Are todays players better than those of yesteryear? I too have seen video indicating that today's players are better overall players. BUT, they SHOULD be better. They've had all the advantage of evolution of the game. I say they should be embarassed if they are NOT better. Some don't want to admit it, but Efren & Jose revolutionized the game (with Accustat Pat's help). What they brought to the game in terms of position play, kicking, safety play, and stamina brought about todays great players (which happen to originate from around the world, not just the US).

Now stop and think what the game will be like in another 20 years.
 
xianmacx said:
I have been watching a handful of matches from the mid 80's (9 ball and one pocket) and it seems that the game was so much more "freewheeling" back then. Very few safes were played in these nineball matches. Alot of hap-hazard shots/banks in the finals of big tournaments. Players would just jump up and try to backcut a shot and throw the cueball 6 rails in hopes of getting shape. It seems to me that the precise, technicians of the game today would totally dominate those past players.

Ian
Click to expand...

Could you be more specific? What tournaments/players are you referring to? Mike Sigel was the tournament player of the decade for the 80's (along with Earl, perhaps), and although he was a tremendous shotmaker, I certainly would not call his game "freewheeling." If a safety was a better percentage shot to win than trying to make the ball and get shape, Mike would play safe. Also, Mike has said before that he tried to play precise cueball position on every shot in 9-ball--a carryover from the precision position play required for great 14.1.

Buddy Hall of course also comes to mind as a tremendous technician at 9-ball. Earl I will give you--the Earl of the 80's certainly was more freewheeling than Sigel or Hall, but when I think of the big names from tournament play from the 80's other than Earl--like Sigel, Hall, Varner, Rempe, and Hopkins, "freewheeling" and "backcutting a ball and going 6 rails hoping to get shape" does not come to mind. As for today's players being better, I think the depth of talent is clearly much greater now than ever before, now that the game has gone international. But as for the cream of the crop, I have seen Sigel and Hall play as close to perfect 9-ball as anyone can possibly play, and I have seen Earl string racks like no one else ever.

Also, to conclude that "the precise, technicians of the game today would totally dominate those past players" after watching a "handful of matches" from the 80's seems to me to be a hasty generalization.

I'm talking 9-ball by the way--I'm not sure about 1-pocket.
 
Last edited:
PoolBum said:
Could you be more specific? What tournaments/players are you referring to? Mike Sigel was the tournament player of the decade for the 80's (along with Earl, perhaps), and although he was a tremendous shotmaker, I certainly would not call his game "freewheeling." If a safety was a better percentage shot to win than trying to make the ball and get shape, Mike would play safe. Also, Mike has said before that he tried to play precise cueball position on every shot in 9-ball--a carryover from the precision position play required for great 14.1.

Buddy Hall of course also comes to mind as a tremendous technician at 9-ball. Earl I will give you--the Earl of the 80's certainly was more freewheeling than Sigel or Hall, but when I think of the big names from tournament play from the 80's other than Earl--like Sigel, Hall, Varner, Rempe, and Hopkins, "freewheeling" and "backcutting a ball and going 6 rails hoping to get shape" does not come to mind. As for today's players being better, I think the depth of talent is clearly much greater now than ever before, now that the game has gone international. But as for the cream of the crop, I have seen Sigel and Hall play as close to perfect 9-ball as anyone can possibly play, and I have seen Earl string racks like no one else ever.

Also, to conclude that "the precise, technicians of the game today would totally dominate those past players" after watching a "handful of matches" from the 80's seems to me to be a hasty generalization.

I'm talking 9-ball by the way--I'm not sure about 1-pocket.
Click to expand...

Good point, they didn't nickname Mike, Captain Hook for no reason. He was the one who seemed to catch onto the one foul rule more quickly than most. Howard Vickery caught on pretty quickly and proved you didn't have to be the big shotmaker to be effective.
 
PoolBum said:
Could you be more specific? What tournaments/players are you referring to? Mike Sigel was the tournament player of the decade for the 80's (along with Earl, perhaps), and although he was a tremendous shotmaker, I certainly would not call his game "freewheeling." If a safety was a better percentage shot to win than trying to make the ball and get shape, Mike would play safe. Also, Mike has said before that he tried to play precise cueball position on every shot in 9-ball--a carryover from the precision position play required for great 14.1.

Buddy Hall of course also comes to mind as a tremendous technician at 9-ball. Earl I will give you--the Earl of the 80's certainly was more freewheeling than Sigel or Hall, but when I think of the big names from tournament play from the 80's other than Earl--like Sigel, Hall, Varner, Rempe, and Hopkins, "freewheeling" and "backcutting a ball and going 6 rails hoping to get shape" does not come to mind. As for todays players being better, I think the depth of talent is clearly much greater now than ever before, now that the game has gone international. But as for the cream of the crop, I have seen Sigel and Hall play as close to perfect 9-ball as anyone can possibly play, and I have seen Earl string racks like no one else ever.

I'm talking 9-ball by the way--I'm not sure about 1-pocket.
Click to expand...



You are correct, I almost edited my post to remove exactly 2. Sigel and Hall. They did play flawless. (reason sigel won a huge majority of the tourneys he played in) The 2 matches I watched yesterday were 88 Akron open. Earl vs McCready and Earl vs Hines. I also agree with the depth of talent these days. A player that is constantly shooting off angle banks at warp 3 while drawing his ball can only get so deep in a 2007 tournament where 150 guys never miss a ball.
 
PoolBum said:
Could you be more specific? What tournaments/players are you referring to? Mike Sigel was the tournament player of the decade for the 80's (along with Earl, perhaps), and although he was a tremendous shotmaker, I certainly would not call his game "freewheeling." If a safety was a better percentage shot to win than trying to make the ball and get shape, Mike would play safe. Also, Mike has said before that he tried to play precise cueball position on every shot in 9-ball--a carryover from the precision position play required for great 14.1.

Buddy Hall of course also comes to mind as a tremendous technician at 9-ball. Earl I will give you--the Earl of the 80's certainly was more freewheeling than Sigel or Hall, but when I think of the big names from tournament play from the 80's other than Earl--like Sigel, Hall, Varner, Rempe, and Hopkins, "freewheeling" and "backcutting a ball and going 6 rails hoping to get shape" does not come to mind. As for todays players being better, I think the depth of talent is clearly much greater now than ever before, now that the game has gone international. But as for the cream of the crop, I have seen Sigel and Hall play as close to perfect 9-ball as anyone can possibly play, and I have seen Earl string racks like no one else ever.

I'm talking 9-ball by the way--I'm not sure about 1-pocket.
Click to expand...


i generally subscribe to this opinion. whilst i would definitely agree that there are more top level players nowadays than before, the top names from say the eighties are still arguably the greatest of all time. Earl, Sigel, Hall are the three for me (talking 9-ball), and as far as i am concerned their A game will always be right at the very top, as good as it gets.
 
And I still argue about pocket size. The tables back then played so much softer than a diamond that those off angle shots and banks were infact high percentage for those players.

I myself enjoy watching McCready get out from everywhere with less concern on percision shape. I think the very tight pockets have slowed the pace of the game way down. I'd like to see tournaments moved back to medium tight tables and watch player run many many racks.
 
xianmacx said:
I have been watching a handful of matches from the mid 80's (9 ball and one pocket) and it seems that the game was so much more "freewheeling" back then. Very few safes were played in these nineball matches. Alot of hap-hazard shots/banks in the finals of big tournaments.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing, in fact, in many of the '90's matches I've watched, some of those "Freewheelers" actually are today's "Technicians". I think that the bar has simply been raised over the years, and players have adapted to the new level of play. A fairly recent example of this would be the transformation that occurred in the WPBA after Allison brought her snooker game to the table.

Ken
 
jrhendy said:
Maybe it is because I'm an oldtimer myself, but playing for money, Keith would be robbing any of todays American players and most of the others except for the top Filipino's, and that would be too close to call. As far as tournament play, the same goes for Earl. These guys just don't seem to run as many racks. Playing Keith or Earl, they would be spending more time in the chair and that would also hurt their game. As far as one pocket, in their prime, Ronnie would be giving all but Efren weight, and Danny would give them all they wanted even. Just an old pool scuffs humble opinion. John Henderson
Click to expand...


I TOTALLY agree! Keith was a monster for money (and so was Buddy) and Earl was the greatest tournament player I ever saw, with Sigel a close second. And Ronnie was the real deal too.
 
Last edited:
xianmacx said:
That is an excellent point about the whole stroke thing. Back then the earls and keiths didn't have to even think about playing conservative as the competition could not run out as well on the slow equiptment.

Even one pocket though....I watch about 2 hours of the "world one pocket championship" with ronnie and Danny D. Both players were shooting sucker shots. one shot in particular, Danny D shoots a cross corner combo bank and if he doesn't hit it perfect, ronnie gets a duck cross corner. Just seems like they made ALOT more errors.
Click to expand...

Ian,

If you didn't know, that was much more of an exhibition match than the title implies.

If both players were betting their own money<not bloody likely>
the play might have been very diferent.

couple of things to consider

1. Ronnie was a very high octane 'run out' 1 pocket player
and would go for many shots feeling 'if it goes, I win'

you can not play conservatively against that style

2. What was the score? in one pocket, if you are losing 6 - 2,
shooting sucker shots is your ONLY hope of winning

Dale
 
mosconiac said:
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I first explored how nostalgia clouds the mind when I got into musclecars. Who among us hasn't had a car in the past that was the greatest car ever made? We all have a slightly skewed memory of how good that car was. The reality is, evolution (even among cars) is a natural thing. We don't want to knock our memories from their pedestal, but if we are honest with ourselves...we must.

I still hear arguments about how a new Viper or Corvette is no match for a 427 Cobra from the 60's. The reality is, both new cars are superior in about every aspect...handling (the result of better tire tech as well as suspension tech), ride (same story), creature comforts (egads! you want a/c?), economy (egads! you want to get something over 6 mpg), and NVH (egads! you don't want your ears to rings for hours after riding in the car?). Is that all a knock on the Cobra? No, it is esteemed because it was without peer...in its time. Does the march of time erode its value? No, it remains highly valued because it was without peer...in its time. It represents a benchmark.

Now, back to pool. Are todays players better than those of yesteryear? I too have seen video indicating that today's players are better overall players. BUT, they SHOULD be better. They've had all the advantage of evolution of the game. I say they should be embarassed if they are NOT better. Some don't want to admit it, but Efren & Jose revolutionized the game (with Accustat Pat's help). What they brought to the game in terms of position play, kicking, safety play, and stamina brought about todays great players (which happen to originate from around the world, not just the US).

Now stop and think what the game will be like in another 20 years.
Click to expand...

In a quarter mile drag, I think I still like the Cobra for brute acceleration.
 
pdcue said:
Ian,

If you didn't know, that was much more of an exhibition match than the title implies.

If both players were betting their own money<not bloody likely>
the play might have been very diferent.

couple of things to consider

1. Ronnie was a very high octane 'run out' 1 pocket player
and would go for many shots feeling 'if it goes, I win'

you can not play conservatively against that style

2. What was the score? in one pocket, if you are losing 6 - 2,
shooting sucker shots is your ONLY hope of winning

Dale
Click to expand...




Dale,

I agree with the statements about Ronnie being a run out player.

I also understand one pocket in regards to playing the score, he had no reason to shoot said shot. Course if it were more exhibition then that makes sense too.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top