Todays players would rob previous gen. players

[jay helfert]

Good thread here. My take on the whole thing is this:

There ARE more good players today! But the best players from the previous generation (the 70's and 80's) were just as good (if not better) than the best players today. I suspect it would be the same from any previous generation. Greenleaf would still be a champion today in my opinion. And Rags would still be robbing guys for the cheese. And on and on. The GREATS of the game were just that, great pool players. They could handle any situation and adapt to the new conditions.

Remember one thing, half the game of Pool is MENTAL. Thousands of guys can run out, so why is it that only a dozen or so are champions. It is because they have the heart to make those tough shots when the match is on the line.

Earl used to play tournament matches and it looked like he was practicing, or shooting on a bar table. Keith would shoot the case 9-Ball in for $10,000 at warp speed, just for laughs. Buddy would never miss a ball when the bet got sky high. I mean NEVER! Oh okay, he missed a ball once a day. And everyone was astounded!

Ronnie would make insane shots playing One Pocket that no one saw coming or believed afterwards. They would set up these shots (always several) after his conquests and try to duplicate them. And Ronnie might shoot it for the cash! He could cut balls super thin down the rail and make them every time when a miss meant a sell out. I rarely saw him miss a key shot when it made the difference between a win or a loss.

There is a reason that these guys are legends. It didn't happen by accident. I only see a handful of players today that could play with the greats from yesteryear. Sad to say most of them are from China and the Philipines.

 

[xianmacx]

Good thread here. My take on the whole thing is this:

There ARE more good players today! But the best players from the previous generation (the 70's and 80's) were just as good (if not better) than the best players today. I suspect it would be the same from any previous generation. Greenleaf would still be a champion today in my opinion. And Rags would still be robbing guys for the cheese. And on and on. The GREATS of the game were just that, great pool players. They could handle any situation and adapt to the new conditions.

Remember one thing, half the game of Pool is MENTAL. Thousands of guys can run out, so why is it that only a dozen or so are champions. It is because they have the heart to make those tough shots when the match is on the line.

Earl used to play tournament matches and it looked like he was practicing, or shooting on a bar table. Keith would shoot the case 9-Ball in for $10,000 at warp speed, just for laughs. Buddy would never miss a ball when the bet got sky high. I mean NEVER! Oh okay, he missed a ball once a day. And everyone was astounded!

Ronnie would make insane shots playing One Pocket that no one saw coming or believed afterwards. They would set up these shots (always several) after his conquests and try to duplicate them. And Ronnie might shoot it for the cash! He could cut balls super thin down the rail and make them every time when a miss meant a sell out. I rarely saw him miss a key shot when it made the difference between a win or a loss.

There is a reason that these guys are legends. It didn't happen by accident. I only see a handful of players today that could play with the greats from yesteryear. Sad to say most of them are from China and the Philipines.

Thanks for the response Jay, Its amazing the difference "heart" and "nerve" can make in a game.

so here is a question....and its a toughie...

What does 2007 Keith need from 1985 Keith? 7 ball?

 

[Andrew Manning]

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

IF you can deliver the torque to the road, then maybe. The problem is, you can't test this, because there's no such thing as a 60's Cobra today, because they've got, at a minimum, 2007 tires. Most of them probably have quite a number of other performance-relevant parts manufactured closer to the present than the 60's as well.

I think the analogy is good though. The older players had amazing skills, but the game evolves, and today's game always beats yesterday's game.

Look at it this way: if 1970's top players were better than 1975's top players, 1975's top players never would have become top players (you can't become the best when you're not as good as the guy who's been the best!) If 1975's players were better than 1980's players, 1980's player never would have made it. Each change in the game has to be able to BEAT the old game, or else the change wouldn't catch on, and wouldn't become the game of the future.

The players playing today's game have to be better than the players playing yesterday's game. It wouldn't make any sense if they weren't. Is their skill more impressive? Not necessarily. Are they more coordinated and intelligent people? Not necessarily. Would they win a 9-ball match? Without a doubt.

-Andrew

 

[jay helfert]

Thanks for the response Jay, Its amazing the difference "heart" and "nerve" can make in a game.

so here is a question....and its a toughie...

What does 2007 Keith need from 1985 Keith? 7 ball?

A lot! He isn't the same player. It's like the difference in Lou Butera's game from the 70's to the 90's. He played just as fast (or faster) back then, but made everything he shot at. Now he misses frequently. The same could be said for Keith.

 

[jay helfert]

IF you can deliver the torque to the road, then maybe. The problem is, you can't test this, because there's no such thing as a 60's Cobra today, because they've got, at a minimum, 2007 tires. Most of them probably have quite a number of other performance-relevant parts manufactured closer to the present than the 60's as well.

I think the analogy is good though. The older players had amazing skills, but the game evolves, and today's game always beats yesterday's game.

Look at it this way: if 1970's top players were better than 1975's top players, 1975's top players never would have become top players (you can't become the best when you're not as good as the guy who's been the best!) If 1975's players were better than 1980's players, 1980's player never would have made it. Each change in the game has to be able to BEAT the old game, or else the change wouldn't catch on, and wouldn't become the game of the future.

The players playing today's game have to be better than the players playing yesterday's game. It wouldn't make any sense if they weren't. Is their skill more impressive? Not necessarily. Are they more coordinated and intelligent people? Not necessarily. Would they win a 9-ball match? Without a doubt.

-Andrew

Pool is a unique sport, different even than Golf or Tennis. The equipment and the rules have changed more than the players or their respective abilities. Whereas in Golf and Tennis, the tools the players used have changed dramatically. Pool cues today are not that much better than older cues as far as playability.

It would take me some time to do justice to this argument, and that will have to wait. I'm not so sure that the best players from the 90's were any better than the best of the 70's. In many cases they are the same players in both eras. Buddy Hall is case in point. In Pool, a great player can have a long career, 30-40 years.

 

[mosconiac]

My contention is that the ability of the players maybe hasn't increased measurably, but the manner in which the game is played has evolved significantly...and it will continue to do so.

An example would be a match I watched between Nick Varner & King James (1984 Caesars Tahoe?). This was an era where the spot shot was still in effect, so that aspect of the game was different. However, something that struck me was how nonchalantly they played safe on one another.

They were simply happy to leave great distance between the balls. Yes, they attempted to hook one another, but that didn't seem to be their priority.

Further, on the occasion they were hooked, they were typically facing only a one-rail kick...Efren taught us to hook your opponent but good so he has to use more than one rail because you use interfering balls to cut off the one-railers.

On the occasion they were solidly hooked, the kicks were not of the precision seen today. Nick missed a relatively common kick by more than a diamond.

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from these great players. It's just that the game of today has been elevated...and thats a good thing!

 

[PoolBum]

Look at it this way: if 1970's top players were better than 1975's top players, 1975's top players never would have become top players (you can't become the best when you're not as good as the guy who's been the best!) If 1975's players were better than 1980's players, 1980's player never would have made it.

The players playing today's game have to be better than the players playing yesterday's game. It wouldn't make any sense if they weren't. Is their skill more impressive? Not necessarily. Are they more coordinated and intelligent people? Not necessarily. Would they win a 9-ball match? Without a doubt.

-Andrew

The flaw here is in not recognizing that over time a player's game can improve or diminish. If the top player from 1970 is not the top player in 1975, that does not mean that the top player in 1975 could beat the top player from 1970, as he played in 1970. It just means that the top player from 1970 is no longer the top player in 1975, but that may be because his game has gone down, and not because the top player from 1975 is better, in 1975, than the top player from 1970 was in 1970.

 

[Jimmy M.]

The players playing today's game have to be better than the players playing yesterday's game. It wouldn't make any sense if they weren't. Is their skill more impressive? Not necessarily. Are they more coordinated and intelligent people? Not necessarily. Would they win a 9-ball match? Without a doubt.

-Andrew

There are MORE good players now, but at the very top level, I tend to think that the best players in this country today wouldn't like it against Sigel, Buddy, Varner, Earl and, perhaps, a couple others. If you look at it world-wide then I guess you could make the argument that you're making, but certainly not in this country (and I blame texas express 9-ball being "the game", but that's another subject entirely). I'm not so sure that I agree with this theory being applied to all sports either. I look at basketball, for example, and I think the argument could be made that today's players aren't as good as some were in previous generations.

 

[uwate]

Some aspects of the game have evolved over time. Kicking, as brought up by a few already, is something that has gotten better over time. Credit to that has to go to the Filipinos. Breaking, jumping and the level of women's play has also gotten better.

That said, I still believe any of the top players, given a time transport to Bellflower in the 70s, would have a tough time beating Keith on the barbox. Or change the destination to Oklahoma and put them into the box with David Matlock when he was in high gear and I find it hard to believe Matlock would get robbed.

This is an age old discussion not just in this sport. Is Michael Jordan the high water mark of the NBA? What about comparing Tiger to others?

I know this for sure. You can't rob anyone if you dont get to shoot. Greenleaf, Mosconi, Harold Worst, Lassiter all come to mind as opponents that could put you in the chair for a while. Could Efren beat them all? Maybe...Maybe not...but would he flat out rob them? I dont think so.

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[xianmacx]

One thing you might be missing is the shot selection. Back then, the top players, like Earl, Buddy, Mike, Keith, would shoot at anything. And rarely missed. Todays top players won't do that. they will put a lock-up safe on you. Yes, they couldn't kick as good then as now. But I fell their shot-making was superior. You didn't get to the table for a long time playing those guys back then.

Yes Neil, thats what im getting at, not "whos got more talent" I'm saying those players selected MUCH different shots and I think we all know shot selection has alot to do with who gets the cheese.

 

[Slider]

Back then, the top players, like Earl, Buddy, Mike, Keith, would shoot at anything. And rarely missed. Todays top players won't do that. they will put a lock-up safe on you. Yes, they couldn't kick as good then as now. But I fell their shot-making was superior. You didn't get to the table for a long time playing those guys back then.

Don't forget - somewhere along the line the pockets became smaller.

Ken

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

Players of the 70s & 80s

The game has become easier today with speed cloth, quick draw cue balls (red circle), one foul ball in hand rules and alternate break. In the 70s and 80s you actually had to have a stroke to go 3 rails for position on slow cloth with a blue circle cue ball. You also had to be able to make a tough shot with roll out rules.

The game today is run out until you get out of line and then duck to win the game. In the "roll out" days you were punished for getting out of line. You actually had to be able to shoot tough shots. Keith McCready was one of the best shot makers ever when roll out was king. Also how many times do you see a player miss and accidently hook his opponent? You could roll out back then.

I guarntee you I have a chance to beat a world class player in a race to 11 with todays equipment and rules. I have NO chance at all to be a world class player in "Roll Out". Todays game requires less shot making skills and more safe (ducking) skills. In the 70s and 80s the best players dominated the game because there was alot more skill required. The rolls have a less impact on "Roll Out" and require alot more shot making skills. Alternate break is a joke since the winner of the game isn't rewarded.

Who is dominatng the game today (with the exception of Efren - he would of been a dominate player in the 70s & 80s as well)? In the 70s and 80s there were about 10 players that dominated and the rest were also rans.

I would love to see 9 Ball go back to at least "Roll out" rules with winner breaks. I think you would see some different players at the top.

 

[ShootingArts]

torque

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

I agree. All of these new beasts have huge numbers, the Viper just bumped theirs to six hundred horsepower, but the big-block muscle cars had a brute torque and power impulse that I think is still unmatched. Incidentally, no idea what the real horsepower of some of the old cars really was, a 425 horse factory 427 vette actually dino'd over five hundred in at least one test.

Nothing quite like the roar from a bunch of cubic inches and the howl from straight cut gears in a manual tranny!

Hu

 

[bigskyjake]

I agree. All of these new beasts have huge numbers, the Viper just bumped theirs to six hundred horsepower, but the big-block muscle cars had a brute torque and power impulse that I think is still unmatched. Incidentally, no idea what the real horsepower of some of the old cars really was, a 425 horse factory 427 vette actually dino'd over five hundred in at least one test.

Nothing quite like the roar from a bunch of cubic inches and the howl from straight cut gears in a manual tranny!

Hu

Actually I just watched American Muscle car a few days ago and the basis of the show was to see how much power the old cars really had. They put a completely stock Ford 427 high-riser on a dyno and it made 650-ish h.p. and 550-ish torque. They also placed a 426 street hemi on the dyno and it made over 800 horses

 

[Jimmy M.]

Yes Neil, thats what im getting at, not "whos got more talent" I'm saying those players selected MUCH different shots and I think we all know shot selection has alot to do with who gets the cheese.

Are there any current, top players that have better shot selection than Buddy, Sigel or Varner? I'm not sure which "top players" from the past generations that you were watching who, from your earlier description, played totally wide-open, but it certainly wasn't any of the three I just mentioned and there are plenty more who played a very smart game of pool.

 

[Snapshot9]

Imo

You have many more players today that can play as compared to the, say, the 60's. For decades only a few were of the top calibur, now several are capable of winning a big tournament (although some can not go the distance).

One big reason, is information sharing, in all ways. In the old days, you were extremely lucky if anyone shared anything with you, and you usually learned new things from getting beaten by some hustler or real good player. That's why hustling was easy back then. The hustlers had all the strategy down, and could pull out one of their bag of tricks at anytime to get the better of you. Learning to be a pro back then was an inner circle type thing, today, we have all kinds of instructional and tactical DVD's, books, videos, and instant gratification, the internet.

Back then, attending a pro tournament was an extremely rare thing, today, many more people go to them.

Today, on the internet, you can hear how good a regional player is, and most likely, find a video somewhere where he is playing in a tournament so you can see for yourself. The mid level tours today afford you the chance to see and compete with lots of good players

So, for any time period, who are the best competitors and players,
it is the ones you LEARN THE MOST FROM. The ones that achieve through
consistency, excellence, and imagination.

 

[ShootingArts]

interesting

Actually I just watched American Muscle car a few days ago and the basis of the show was to see how much power the old cars really had. They put a completely stock Ford 427 high-riser on a dyno and it made 650-ish h.p. and 550-ish torque. They also placed a 426 street hemi on the dyno and it made over 800 horses

I haven't kept up with high performance in years but it used to be that each dyno was pretty much unique to itself, there wasn't any set calibration. Along about 1973 Bobby Allison had a dyno. According to his dyno his engines only produced 480 horsepower. However they were still stout enough to win anywhere. Interesting that the old engines are showing so much horsepower on the new dyno's. Makes me wonder what my 600HP sprint car engine really put out on alcohol.

My favorite daily driver was a 454 pick-up. It was mildly hopped and would pass almost anything but a gas station. Some other guys towed to the dragstrip with a '55 Ford pick-up and then put slicks on it and raced it. With a full race 427 under the hood it was an ultimate sleeper. Of course some guys in town had an old stock looking Galaxy with a 427 cammer under the hood, 736HP factory rating! I suspect it could still give all the new ones all they wanted in a straight line.

Hu

 

[Johnnyt]

A little off subject here sorry. I can remember on Long Island when you could go to the junk yard and get a car body and a big motor from somthing else,(a few hundred dollars tops) spend a few weeks in your driveway making the swap and had a chance to bring home a win in it's class. I raced at Islip Speedway. One day I had a 58-59 Ford (i think) out there with a big engine. I went around the pits looking to see who was in my class. I see this tractor trailer with a 60 something Camaro, three engines, all kinds of parts, and a complete machine shop.

The guy blew me off the line and never looked back. Awhile after that you couldn't win a race without putting big money in your car or having a big sponsor. It took all the fun out of drag racing for us poor folks. Johnnyt

 

[Handsumm]

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"!

125 right.