Todays players would rob previous gen. players

Snapshot9 said:
What do you think about the 'new' Challenger?
Click to expand...

I think the new Challenger is the best looking car to come out in ages, Snap. Especially if it's the SRT-8 which is the 425hp version. In fact, I don't think I have seen one yet that didn't have the 6.1L 425hp hemi in it. If they sell well they will put the milder 5.7L hemi is some and make them cheaper, I'm sure.

All the 426 hemis were factory rated at 425hp and 490ft. lbs. of torque but they were actually, like Jay's tri-power Vette, over 500hp. The compression ratio of the 70 hemis were 10.25-1. They dropped it to 10-1 on the 71 hemis. 10.25-1 is capable of running 93 octain gas, though the power does drop. I put half 93 and half 108 race gas in it and it ran well, Ironman. Don't think I mentioned that I sold my hemicuda a couple of years ago when it reached a certain value I had pre-set in my mind to a local collector. Unfortunately, for me, the car has doubled in value in that time.

Last year a 1971 hemicuda convertable was listed on e-bay. The bid reached $3.3 million and did not meet the reserve. Had we all only known.
 
gulfportdoc said:
You're right, Jay. But that's in one-pocket, not 9-ball. Today's 9-ball rules, which favor luck, will not allow anyone to dominate.

Doc
Click to expand...

I gotta disagree with you, Doc. Its the rising level of competition, not the rules, that prevent any one player from dominating the rest. After all, Varner, Sigel, Archer and Strickland all enjoyed periods of dominance during the BIH era. The problem now is that the fields are so deep and loaded with talent. During the 1999 U.S. Open, Buddy Hall was heard to say that it was the only tournament in which there were 40 players that could beat him. In the 2007 U.S. Open, there will probably be twice that number that could jump up and beat the defending champion.

Yet and still, despite the rising level of competition, the list of people playing on any given Sunday will usually have an Archer, a Reyes, a Hohman (sp?), a Manolo, a Pagulyan, etc. The point is that the cream still rises to the top--its just that there is a lot more cream in the tub these days!
 
cuetechasaurus said:
They are both way past their prime in that match.
Click to expand...

Not really. In the twilight of their careers maybe, but still quite capable. Ronnie practiced for weeks with Jack Cooney to get ready for Danny. And Danny was House Pro at the Golden Cue and playing on that table daily.

Ronnie and Danny were both around 50 when that match was played. Not old by pool player standards. I would say Ronnie was at about 80 to 90% of his top speed and Danny about 90% also. There is some good pool played there.

I've often said it was the last time I saw Ronnie play good.
 
jay helfert said:
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.
Click to expand...



the big change was to Simonis cloth in the late 80's, then the "Big Stroke" players like Earl were equalized by the no stroke guys like Hopkins or Vikory.

the other thing is the pocket size and rotating breaks changes things alot, i liked watching 6 packs and etc.
 
> The Buddy Hall quote is off a little. At the U.S. Open,his statement was that this was the only tournament in the world that draws 60 people that he's never even heard of that can beat him. I would still think if the bet got right,any of them could get played. Tommy D.
 
xianmacx said:
under what playing conditions?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, Lassiter in his prime vs Orcullo now, something like 12 ahead for $20,000, or a long race on any table, any rules (9ball). Lassiter giving Orcullo the 8. I would take Lassiter for $1000.
 
SixSence said:
Hypothetically, Lassiter in his prime vs Orcullo now, something like 12 ahead for $20,000, or a long race on any table, any rules (9ball). Lassiter giving Orcullo the 8. I would take Lassiter for $1000.
Click to expand...


My only response to that is....I would have loved to see Lassiter and some of these other greats in their prime.

Ian
 
jay helfert said:
Luther is feeling a little sick today. He may not be able to make it.
Click to expand...

Heh, heh... I understand that was normal for him... even in his prime.

Ken
 
Fatboy said:
the big change was to Simonis cloth in the late 80's, then the "Big Stroke" players like Earl were equalized by the no stroke guys like Hopkins or Vikory.

the other thing is the pocket size and rotating breaks changes things alot, i liked watching 6 packs and etc.
Click to expand...

Hopkins stroke might have been short and a bit choppy, but it was very dam effective. I would hardly call him a no stroke.
 
jay helfert said:
Luther is feeling a little sick today. He may not be able to make it.
Click to expand...

If Luther is feeling a little sick, he may be able to give up the 7 instead of the 8. He always seemed to play better when he was a little sick (which was almost always!).
 
I will be one of the few who disagrees to a point. I think the last generation maybe, but go back to the lattter part of the 1800's thru the 1940's and look at how pool, and billiards were perceived. My grandfather used to tell me about rooms that had over a 100 tables in every large city. He told me that Chicago, and New York had rooms that had 40-60 tables sharing blocks throughout the city. Pool hustlers didn't have the large variety of vices (casinos, off track racing, lottos, card clubs, and home poker games) that we have. The golden age of sports is known for a few spectacular athletes (Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, Bill Tilden, Red Grange, Ralf Greenleaf) My grandfather was succesful at 9ball, and straight pool when they played with clay balls and nap cloth. Running 200 balls in 14.1 or 8 racks of 9ball was not like playing on Simonis 860. He told me that he paid for his home and bought a new car every 3 years by being the best at playing pool, and cards. I think if the money was right the players of today would be better, but they have no incentive right now. i wanted to follow in my grandfathers footsteps and travel the world with my cue, but I would never be able to retire early and provide a nice life for my family. Guys like Johnny Archer, John Schmidt, Shannon daulton, Jeremy Jones, corey Duell, etc. are as talented as anyone in the world past or present, but ask johnny how many hours he practices a day. Very few make enough solely playing to put the effort into developing, or maintaining there talent. Someone on this board made a good point awile back. Have some eccentric billionaire put up 10 million to have someone break Mosconi's record of 526 and see if it stands for 50 more years no chance.

Huck
 
older players were the real technicians!

if u go back to 2 shot foul rule before the "dink rule"[1 foul] ball in hand youll find the best players always won 98% of the time. the dink rule we have now allows the lesser player a chance to "dink" and win. why should the player with the lesser skills win by simpley dinking and get ball in hand be able to win? well in my day from 1964 to 1986 all the good players were always trying to trap the weak players, thats why we now have 1 foul ball in hand and 3 foul rule. i never forget i played a match against Bob V anover in 1980 or 81? at a tourney in amarillo, i had the match won and his only out was to try the 3 foul rule. well he got lucky and hooked me the 2 time. i couldnt hit the ball in no way and he won the match! think about that a minute! the rules of nine ball today are made for the weaker players ande i say the old players were far better! sparky
 
Good, bad or indifferent, however you perceive it, today's top players should be better. Each successive generation of players should be improving. Learning from those who came before them, "following the path that was laid by others" Technology has improved, perception and exposure has improved, mistakes made by players past have been corrected by players present....and so on and so forth......what do you think, too many cliches?
 
mark8950 said:
if u go back to 2 shot foul rule before the "dink rule"[1 foul] ball in hand youll find the best players always won 98% of the time. the dink rule we have now allows the lesser player a chance to "dink" and win. why should the player with the lesser skills win by simpley dinking and get ball in hand be able to win? well in my day from 1964 to 1986 all the good players were always trying to trap the weak players, thats why we now have 1 foul ball in hand and 3 foul rule. i never forget i played a match against Bob V anover in 1980 or 81? at a tourney in amarillo, i had the match won and his only out was to try the 3 foul rule. well he got lucky and hooked me the 2 time. i couldnt hit the ball in no way and he won the match! think about that a minute! the rules of nine ball today are made for the weaker players ande i say the old players were far better! sparky
Click to expand...

Regarding this match with Bob Vanovoer (multi-time Texas State Champion, IIRC), where three fouling you was "his only out": I assume then, that the match got to hill-hill. How did he win the other games?
 
jay helfert said:
Not really. In the twilight of their careers maybe, but still quite capable. Ronnie practiced for weeks with Jack Cooney to get ready for Danny. And Danny was House Pro at the Golden Cue and playing on that table daily.

Ronnie and Danny were both around 50 when that match was played. Not old by pool player standards. I would say Ronnie was at about 80 to 90% of his top speed and Danny about 90% also. There is some good pool played there.

I've often said it was the last time I saw Ronnie play good.
Click to expand...

Jay I've got a question for you, or anyone else who knows. My friend loaned me this really old tape, it had Willie Jopling showing a bunch of different shots. After that, it had a very young Keith McCready and Ronnie playing one pocket. Keith looked like he was 20 years old, quite a bit younger than he looked in TCOM. Keith played near perfect and lost 3-0. I don't think he missed a ball, I'll watch it again. Ronnie was just incredible. I'm guessing that's when Ronnie was in his prime. Anyone know what year and tournament this is from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top