I know it's a hypothetical question, but how would Dennis Orcullo or Yang fare against players like Buddy Hall, Nick Varner, Mike Sigel, Jim Rempe, etc. when they were in their prime? Would it be about even? Lets exclude conditions, and say both sides are adapted to the table conditions. It makes me concerned because it doesn't really seem like Americans of today are following in the footsteps of pocket billiards greatness like Buddy, Sigel, Varner, etc. These guys were absoloute monters, played about as perfect as you can get. How come it seems that the only ones following in the footsteps of the American greats aren't American? Thoughts?
USA of Yesteryear vs The World Today?
- Thread starter cuetechasaurus
- Start date
I think the reason we see less and less American greats is a lack of good, competitive rooms for kids to start out in. That and video games. I actually had a 22 yr old tell me he loves the game but can't play it for real because he doesn't have time to learn. He then told me he was a master at online pool though. He was completely serious.
A huge factor is the availabilty of good mentors and teachers. Without them it is a tough road to great pool.
One guy who goes above and beyond to develop good new players is Mark Wilson. I don't think you can say enough about what he does to promote the game in a positive and professional way, and he puts his money and time, where his mouth his.
A huge factor is the availabilty of good mentors and teachers. Without them it is a tough road to great pool.
One guy who goes above and beyond to develop good new players is Mark Wilson. I don't think you can say enough about what he does to promote the game in a positive and professional way, and he puts his money and time, where his mouth his.
Voodoo Daddy
One Pocket 101
Neil said:
TAP, TAP, TAP!!! Its the Drive-thru window mentality...I want it now.
cuetechasaurus said:
todays players would be looking pretty shabby imho
Neil said:
Very true. And all the great American players who came up during the 'Hustler Days' learned the game like the Philipinnos do today - it was a matter of survival. They didn't have tournaments back then like today's players, where they could have earned a meager living. Instead, they had to work and hustle for every penny they got.
Varner and Rempe do not fall into that category, IMHO. Buddy Hall does.
Look even farther back...
Exactly... This thread talks about past players going back to varner and buddy hall. Try comparing those guys and those today to people even farther back like Luther Lassiter, Jersey Red, and Willie Mosconi. Given Mosconi played a game that might not require the stroke that today's nine-ball does and Jersey Red specialized in one-pocket (but a power game, not today's more soft and strategical game), I still wonder how today's and yesterday's players match up against those back in 20's-60's.
Lassiter would be the perfect example given he specialized in nine-ball, but there's really no way to compare because we can't watch him play when he was in his prime. All we have are stories and books, and maybe a few videos when he was old, but I'm willing to bet that at least on the levels of concentration, consistency, and specifics, Lassiter would of had everyone today beat by a long shot. Again, back then they played for pride and survival, and had a less complex world with less to do and little distraction in the form of technology (TV, video games, etc). Also, during the depression and WW2, pool was at the height of its popularity in the US, and was easily accessible to children compared to today.
Try reading Hustler Days by R.A. Dyer to get a perspective on pool in that era. Everything about that era fascinates me. The stories of how the pool husters first started playing pool, the environment, the way things were done, the nicknames, the stories, the lifestyle, the value of a cent; Everything about it intrigues me. I honestly wish I was born back then =/
Neil said:
Exactly... This thread talks about past players going back to varner and buddy hall. Try comparing those guys and those today to people even farther back like Luther Lassiter, Jersey Red, and Willie Mosconi. Given Mosconi played a game that might not require the stroke that today's nine-ball does and Jersey Red specialized in one-pocket (but a power game, not today's more soft and strategical game), I still wonder how today's and yesterday's players match up against those back in 20's-60's.
Lassiter would be the perfect example given he specialized in nine-ball, but there's really no way to compare because we can't watch him play when he was in his prime. All we have are stories and books, and maybe a few videos when he was old, but I'm willing to bet that at least on the levels of concentration, consistency, and specifics, Lassiter would of had everyone today beat by a long shot. Again, back then they played for pride and survival, and had a less complex world with less to do and little distraction in the form of technology (TV, video games, etc). Also, during the depression and WW2, pool was at the height of its popularity in the US, and was easily accessible to children compared to today.
Try reading Hustler Days by R.A. Dyer to get a perspective on pool in that era. Everything about that era fascinates me. The stories of how the pool husters first started playing pool, the environment, the way things were done, the nicknames, the stories, the lifestyle, the value of a cent; Everything about it intrigues me. I honestly wish I was born back then =/
Yesterday was of a slower calculated pace.todays youth does not want to take the time to play 14-1 or 1 pocket.i remember going into pool halls in the 50and 60's watching the players they played at a slower speed like they had all day that they were not going anywhere..now they want fast action and want it fast..9 ball the game BUT that takes too long then they play 7 ball.that is of little interest so they take up computer games of pool..then they switch from pool to on-line poker..look at the carnival rides/parks from the 50's and 60's the rides back then would bore the youth of today..everybody today wants everything faster and grandeur in their lives.people back then would pick up a house cue and runs balls.nowadays a person has to have a thousand dollar cue with a special tip and weights and gloves and slick liquid for their bridge and all kinds of other aids..am i complaining no,this is the way it is now but nothing will ever stop me from remembering the good ole past now that was LIFE...
SixSence said:
Back in those days you had to be 18 or so to enter a pool room. Only a few lucky kids were allowed to play in pool rooms, due to various associations they had made with the owners.
Pool is more accessible than ever these days.
Cameron Smith said:
Not true. Back then the age limit might have been 18, but today most places that have pool tables aren't pool halls, they are bars, and you must be 21. Not only that, but the age limit is stricter and more enforced because ABC laws are involved. Back then, as long as the pool owner didn't mind, anyone could get in. Not to meantion, back then there were thousands more pool halls than today, when people flocked to pool halls because they were unemployeed, making that hustler/bum life and quick money seem reasonable.
Back in the Day and the future of Pool.....
I nostalgicly remember, as a young teenager in the early 60's, becoming facinated watching the older teens (over 16) playing straight pool in one of two bowling alleys near my home. These places had great equipment, Brunswick Anniversays and Gold Crowns and they touted themselves as Family Billiard Centers, although I can never recall seeing any families in them. I couldn't wait to turn 16, but I watched in awe as these guys consistantly ran racks of balls, played creative safeties and hustled each other out of quarters and sometimes dollars. These guys played the game as it should be played at a very early age and were there every night of the week. It was common to see corner ball one rail as an opening break and corner balls cross side on subsequent breaks. I had to be part of that milieu. My only distraction was the pin ball machines. There were no computer games or play station and really nothing special on TV to keep me home. Anyway at 16 I started. In a short while I picked up 1940's Willie Hoppe two piece cue for $10. Now I have a 13 yr old with his cue, a table at home and he has no interest. "Tech" has won him over, not pool.
I nostalgicly remember, as a young teenager in the early 60's, becoming facinated watching the older teens (over 16) playing straight pool in one of two bowling alleys near my home. These places had great equipment, Brunswick Anniversays and Gold Crowns and they touted themselves as Family Billiard Centers, although I can never recall seeing any families in them. I couldn't wait to turn 16, but I watched in awe as these guys consistantly ran racks of balls, played creative safeties and hustled each other out of quarters and sometimes dollars. These guys played the game as it should be played at a very early age and were there every night of the week. It was common to see corner ball one rail as an opening break and corner balls cross side on subsequent breaks. I had to be part of that milieu. My only distraction was the pin ball machines. There were no computer games or play station and really nothing special on TV to keep me home. Anyway at 16 I started. In a short while I picked up 1940's Willie Hoppe two piece cue for $10. Now I have a 13 yr old with his cue, a table at home and he has no interest. "Tech" has won him over, not pool.
I don't want to try to figure out who would win between Orcullo and the older greats but I don't think Orcullo would be stealing from any of the players you mentioned when they were in their prime. I think that the very top American players of that era were on a different level than the very top American players of today. However, I do think there are more "very good" American players today than there were back then. I know I've said this before on here, but American players grow up playing Texas Express 9-ball which is the least challenging game out there (unless you want to start throwing in games like 6-ball and 7-ball). If you break real hard and shoot real straight, you're liable to beat anyone in Texas Express rules 9-ball. And, if you notice, the "break real hard and shoot real straight" style (with only a mild regard of the cue ball) is a very popular one among the young players of today. They play other games in other countries and, as a result, they develop skills that today's young American players don't seem to really develop. Or, at the very least, the young American players aren't developing those skills to the level that players who play other games are developing them.
cuetechasaurus said:
as has already been said, it's the attitude and mindset which is different today. i mean, take today's game (or games) of choice. 9 or eight ball. when i ask people at the pool hall why they prefer nine ball, the answer's never "because it is more skilful", or "i like the mix of attacking play and safety" or indeed any other reason. 99% of the time the answer is "because it's over with quick". i mean, what kind of reason is that?? if you supposedly like something why do you want it to be so quick?? take sex as an example! 
and when the answer isn't 9-ball and they say eight ball, it's just as bad. this time it's because basically they can't be arsed to try any other games for longer than two minutes. "Let's go back to normal pool" they say.
now i know my second point is more to do with casual bangers than anything else, but still it reflects the instant gratification society of today.
as for the original question, i think the players of yesteryear are just as good, probably better in the case of the likes of sigel, varner, hall etc. the only difference nowadays is the amount of top american players. and a more subtle point i think sadly is the case, for whatever reason, the amount of effort(?), determination(?), desire(?) to be consistently the best and to stay at the top for a good while.
and when the answer isn't 9-ball and they say eight ball, it's just as bad. this time it's because basically they can't be arsed to try any other games for longer than two minutes. "Let's go back to normal pool" they say.
now i know my second point is more to do with casual bangers than anything else, but still it reflects the instant gratification society of today.
as for the original question, i think the players of yesteryear are just as good, probably better in the case of the likes of sigel, varner, hall etc. the only difference nowadays is the amount of top american players. and a more subtle point i think sadly is the case, for whatever reason, the amount of effort(?), determination(?), desire(?) to be consistently the best and to stay at the top for a good while.