Van Boening vs. Gorst 10-Ball Race to 120, Rematch June 2025 -- General Comments Thread

[8intheside]

nobody was recording pool

nobody was recording pool

not enough unfortunately

 

[Positively Ralf]

It's so easy to not watch- you literally have to do nothing

Who said I was watching?

 

[pt109]

Worst was a world champion billiards player, but his career as a pool player lasted just from 1963-65. He was ill and died in 1966. If all cue-sports are included in the conversation, he is about as legendary as it gets.

When guys like Jay Helfert tell me that he was, more or less, Luther Lassiter's equal at pool, that carries a lot of weight with me. BCA Hall of Famer Eddie Kelly said something similar about Worst. That said, however, I agree with those who suggest that Worst's pool career was too short to merit mention with the all-time greats. He is one of pool's saddest "what might have been" stories, but the quality of play that he displayed is rightly celebrated.

The Miz worshipped Harold as a young player….at tournaments when his health started to fade, Steve ran all his errands.

 

[sjm]

The Miz worshipped Harold as a young player….at tournaments when his health started to fade, Steve ran all his errands.

No surprise there. I've been told that the young Miz was also extremely supportive of Cisero Murphy when Cisero was being denied entry into the World championships.

Steve was all class.

 

[marek]

I believe Shaw played marathon races against both Bergman and Orcullo, losing both if memory serves.

With everything that happened around those two matches I doubt Jayson will play either JB or any filipino player for money ever again..

 

[fjk]

You’re entitled to your opinion, if you saw him play I’m sure you’d think differently.

1965

 

[skogstokig]

I have to wonder how much of that is the more accurate cues, more accurate cloth, lower nap cloth and simply getting used to playing on tighter pockets. I certainly don't know.

With some of the high deflection cues and rugs they used to play with years ago even the slightest accidental English (which even happens to pros often enough to matter) or cue elevation a shot that goes in now could be a miss then due to unwanted deflection or swerve - not to mention the greater adjustments you had to make even when the English was on purpose.

I don't doubt the best players are more accurate now, but I suspect the gap is not as large as it looks. I rarely play now, but when I do, I play on a rug cloth with an old high deflection cue. I miss enough shots that I used to be 98% on in the past to know it's not all decline on my part. Give me a new predator and brand new high quality cloth and my pocketing will go up even if the pockets are tougher than in my peak days.

i think the cues are overhyped. there are still guys playing with old school maple shafts; ko pin yi, ko ping chung, lee van corteza, mickey krause and probably others. not many wants to take on those guys. ko ping chung beat filler to become world 10-ball champion and he beat fedor gorst to become US open champion just two years ago.

i totally understand the practical argument for cf shafts, but don't tell me there's something a cf player can do that ko or corteza can't do.

as for the level rising. it does in every sport. maybe the closest comparison is snooker. today's players are better, and the field is deeper, but their knowledge acquisition has been easier and they are generally in a better situation with sponsors, practice centers, etc than steve davis or alex higgins

 

[markjames]

You’re entitled to your opinion, if you saw him play I’m sure you’d think differently.

the harold worst videos will have to do for those of us who weren’t able to attend his matches in the 50’s and 60’s

if you saw him play i’m sure i’ll think differently

 

[Wayne Crimi]

There's much wisdom in this post.

Playing conditions haven't changed much in the past twenty years and I'm not convinced that the equipment has advanced very far, either, but to compare the players of this generation to those that played alongside Earl, Sigel, Varner, and Hall is a bit problematic because the game itself has changed.

Last November, Mike Sigel and I had a chat about how the stroke needed to succeed today is different than what was needed some forty years ago. He noted that the short, compact stroke that is in vogue today reminds him of that of Allen Hopkins in his prime. I think that equipment has evolved to suit the players (and strokes) of this generation, and that the equipment of forty years ago was perfect for that generation of players.

All that said, your premise is correct. Ultimately, the comparison across generations is almost impossible, and in the end, excellence can only be measured in the context of how any player performs against his/her contemporaries.

Thanks for your input.

Interesting that he brought up Hopkins. The first time I saw peak Hopkins play he was playing 9 ball in Queens NY at the Golden Cue. He missed one shot in over an hour of play. He was insanely good that night. I was a teenager at the time and tried to mimic his stroke a little because I personally used a very short bridge and punchy stroke playing mostly 14.1. I felt it was more accurate. I never really stayed with his stroke. It was too extreme. Over time I switched from 14.1 to 9 ball and my bridge length and stroke got longer. But I think there's something to be said for shorter more compact strokes and accuracy. I saw some film of Lassiter one time and it looked like he gripped pretty far forward and had a short stroke also. I'm not going to argue with Lassiter. haha

 

[AtLarge]

Interesting that he brought up Hopkins. The first time I saw peak Hopkins play he was playing 9 ball in Queens NY at the Golden Cue. He missed one shot in over an hour of play. He was insanely good that night. I was a teenager at the time and tried to mimic his stroke a little because I personally used a very short bridge and punchy stroke playing mostly 14.1. I felt it was more accurate. I never really stayed with his stroke. It was too extreme. Over time I switched from 14.1 to 9 ball and my bridge length and stroke got longer. But I think there's something to be said for shorter more compact strokes and accuracy. I saw some film of Lassiter one time and it looked like he gripped pretty far forward and had a short stroke also. I'm not going to argue with Lassiter. haha

We had a thread in 2012 about Hopkins' stroke. Here's something I wrote at the time:

I have a theory about Hopkins' stroke. The story goes that he has such a short backswing because of too-close walls around his home table when he was a kid.​

​

Well, surely not all of the walls were that close to the table; he must have had plenty of opportunity to develop a longer backswing. And when he began playing outside his home, he wasn't immutably constrained to continue using the same stroke he used to avoid the one (or two?) close walls in his basement.​

​

No, I think he used (and uses) that stroke because he discovered the beauty inherent in it. He undoubtedly tried much longer backswings. But I'm suggesting that he rationally chose the short backswing because he was able to do better with it than with a longer swing. Why would that be? Because ... the short backswing eliminates a lot of space in which the stroke can go off line going either backward or forward. He found that it optimized the accuracy of his stroke.​

​

I'm surprised we don't see more strokes like Hopkins'.​

 

[straightline]

I think what's wrong with Hopkin's stroke is you need a fair amount of <bonehead jock> to muscle ize all the touch memory. Much simpler to relax and stroke at the appropriate speed. You simply don't need to "Mighty Hulk" high stakes pool.

 

[skogstokig]

We had a thread in 2012 about Hopkins' stroke. Here's something I wrote at the time:

I have a theory about Hopkins' stroke. The story goes that he has such a short backswing because of too-close walls around his home table when he was a kid.​

​

Well, surely not all of the walls were that close to the table; he must have had plenty of opportunity to develop a longer backswing. And when he began playing outside his home, he wasn't immutably constrained to continue using the same stroke he used to avoid the one (or two?) close walls in his basement.​

​

No, I think he used (and uses) that stroke because he discovered the beauty inherent in it. He undoubtedly tried much longer backswings. But I'm suggesting that he rationally chose the short backswing because he was able to do better with it than with a longer swing. Why would that be? Because ... the short backswing eliminates a lot of space in which the stroke can go off line going either backward or forward. He found that it optimized the accuracy of his stroke.​

​

I'm surprised we don't see more strokes like Hopkins'.​

there's lee van with his version of a jab stroke. i guess the way you put it there's some merit to it. i've always put them in the keith / bustie / mike davis / mo soufi - "box of weird strokes that somehow works"

 

[Baby Huey]

I watched an interesting videography of the top 20 baseball players of all time. Babe Ruth was voted the best. The reason was he revolutionized the game and his records have stood the test of time. But his accomplishments are well documented and statistically available for scrutiny. Conversely, Harold Worst doesn't have the same type of data available so mostly we have to rely on first hand accounts. His very short career essentially from post Korean war to 1966 only includes 3C and then pool. Sadly he just didn't get much of a chance to display his talents before he was taken away.