Was pool better 50 years ago?

[middleofnowhere]

Nice post. I'm not old enough to have seen prime Mosconi or Greenleaf, so the best two pool players I have even seen play were Sigel and Filler/ Yes, I saw prime Lassiter, who, in Nick Varner's words, shot as straight as today's straightest shooters. Lassiter was, perhaps, the Efren Reyes of the 1960s. For the exact reasons you give, it's awfully difficult to compare Filler to Sigel.

Nonetheless, I think you've overlooked one of the factors, and that's knowledge. Today's players have much more knowledge than those of yesteryear, largely because the learning resources available in this era are head and shoulders above those available in Sigel's day. If you want to take Filler back to the golden age of pool to play against prime Mike Sigel, you must not only take away his equipment advantages but also strip him of his knowledge advantages. Unless you do that, I think he schools Sigel at 9ball.

In the end, I'll always believe that both Filler and Sigel would have been superstars of the highest order in any era of pool.

This is not meant to a debate but you made the comment. What does Filler know that Sigel doesn't? Or would be unable to learn if need be.

 

[sjm]

This is not meant to a debate but you made the comment. What does Filler know that Sigel doesn't? Or would be unable to learn if need be.

For example:

1) Far more kicking systems are known today than fifty years ago, and, unlike back then, all the top players are learning them.
2) The technical breakdown of the stroke is more advanced today than in Sigel's day and the video equipment exists to break down a stroke into its component parts in ways that were impossible fifty years ago.
3) Thanks to online resources, more knowledge is accessible about the technical side of the game and the physics governing what is possible than back in the day.
4) Much more is understood about the break than in Sigel's prime. In Sigel's day, they were still figuring it out, and Mike himself was often breaking with draw, something that is almost extinct today.
5) Tactical theory has come a long way since Sigel's day. Yes, the Filipinos of 1995-2010 had a lot to do with the advancement of the theory, but today's players have a heightened sense of the percentages because of it, far beyond anything I saw back in the day.

In a dream scenario, I'd like to see Filler play Mike with the kind of equipment that was in vogue in Sigel's day and without the knowledge edge that today's players enjoy because of the improvement in both the teaching of the game and the abundance of online resources. Alternatively, Mike could, just as you suggest, get himself up to the level of knowledge enjoyed by a Filler, and match up on today's equipment.

No matter how you slice it, these time travel matches are awfully hard to handicap! Still, we can fantasize, right?

 

[Biloxi Boy]

We played on the old equipment. We know what it took to overcome the limitations. I play better now -- I credit better cloth and rails, but cues have come a long way, too. I can only wish my young self could play with the benefit of all of the advancements of the last 50 years . . .

The distribution and availability of knowledge, however, is tops, hands down. Stu, and maybe others, killed it on this point. TV, computers, phones, Dr. Dave, et al., the hits just keep on coming. We have all of this incredible information at our fingertips. I often rail against technology and its deleterious effects, but when it comes to the distribution and availability of knowledge, I have to conclude that we are emerging from a second Dark Ages. I had to go to my college library and its card catalog, (remember the Dewey Decimal System?) to find ancient tomes on billiards.

 

[skogstokig]

Seems you missed my point. Filler, for example, has been playing with a high tech Predator cue for his entire life. There were no high tech LD cues available 50 years ago. Also, the tables, rails, cloth, and balls were different. The cloth was a lot slower. They did not have that super fast Simonis stuff available 50 years ago. The rails probably were not as great as they are today either. The balls were probably not as good either. I am not sure just how strong Filler would be able to play, if you took him back 50 years, in a time machine, without his own cues, and had him use whatever was available 50 years ago. Back then, most Pros probably played with either a Joss, or a Meucci. I am sure that Filler could still really great, but on his regular level? I am not sure about that.

yea but the filipino players that filler often beats grew up on conditions wetter, slower and dirtier than i've seen in any old american (or european for that matter) recording. some of the money matches they stream to this day have third world conditions, old beat up star tables with cloth that looks like it's been flipped five times and with talcum on the rails. lee van corteza plays with a regular maple shaft, so does the ko brothers and several other pros. i've never found this argument to hold up.

 

[Lowell]

yea but the filipino players that filler often beats grew up on conditions wetter, slower and dirtier than i've seen in any old american (or european for that matter) recording. some of the money matches they stream to this day have third world conditions, old beat up star tables with cloth that looks like it's been flipped five times and with talcum on the rails. lee van corteza plays with a regular maple shaft, so does the ko brothers and several other pros. i've never found this argument to hold up.

Ko Ping Chung is playing outstanding pool with a wood shaft, 13mm tip, and no glove. But I assume the shaft he uses is LD relative to old school wood shafts.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

Nice post. I'm not old enough to have seen prime Mosconi or Greenleaf, so the best two pool players I have even seen play were Sigel and Filler/ Yes, I saw prime Lassiter, who, in Nick Varner's words, shot as straight as today's straightest shooters. Lassiter was, perhaps, the Efren Reyes of the 1960s. For the exact reasons you give, it's awfully difficult to compare Filler to Sigel.

Nonetheless, I think you've overlooked one of the factors, and that's knowledge. Today's players have much more knowledge than those of yesteryear, largely because the learning resources available in this era are head and shoulders above those available in Sigel's day. If you want to take Filler back to the golden age of pool to play against prime Mike Sigel, you must not only take away his equipment advantages but also strip him of his knowledge advantages. Unless you do that, I think he schools Sigel at 9ball.

In the end, I'll always believe that both Filler and Sigel would have been superstars of the highest order in any era of pool.

Yeah, Filler is such a powerful player. He could probably adapt to a nice Joss, from the 70's, for example, pretty easily, and adapt to those tables, pretty easily.

I grew up during the 90's, and even then, the equipment was so much different then it has been in recent years. There were no jump cues, for example. No high tech break cues, or super LD shafts, lol. The game was so much more interesting during the 90's, because it seemed that the top players had such a powerful stroke, and there was none of these silly soft breaks, and cut breaks, going on.

 

[vintagecollectibles831]

yea but the filipino players that filler often beats grew up on conditions wetter, slower and dirtier than i've seen in any old american (or european for that matter) recording. some of the money matches they stream to this day have third world conditions, old beat up star tables with cloth that looks like it's been flipped five times and with talcum on the rails. lee van corteza plays with a regular maple shaft, so does the ko brothers and several other pros. i've never found this argument to hold up.

Your reply just gave me a thought. I wonder how much stronger a prime Buddy Hall (from the mid 70's) would play on todays conditions, and with todays equipment. Him, or any of the other top players from 50 years ago. They might play even stronger, if they have and play on the high tech stuff that is available today. Your reply gave me that thought, because those Philippine players have to play in such horrible conditions, but when you put them in perfect conditions, they become freaks, and just run everyone over. The Filler killers, many of them, I bet.

 

[middleofnowhere]

For example:

1) Far more kicking systems are known today than fifty years ago, and, unlike back then, all the top players are learning them.
2) The technical breakdown of the stroke is more advanced today than in Sigel's day and the video equipment exists to break down a stroke into its component parts in ways that were impossible fifty years ago.
3) Thanks to online resources, more knowledge is accessible about the technical side of the game and the physics governing what is possible than back in the day.
4) Much more is understood about the break than in Sigel's prime. In Sigel's day, they were still figuring it out, and Mike himself was often breaking with draw, something that is almost extinct today.
5) Tactical theory has come a long way since Sigel's day. Yes, the Filipinos of 1995-2010 had a lot to do with the advancement of the theory, but today's players have a heightened sense of the percentages because of it, far beyond anything I saw back in the day.

In a dream scenario, I'd like to see Filler play Mike with the kind of equipment that was in vogue in Sigel's day and without the knowledge edge that today's players enjoy because of the improvement in both the teaching of the game and the abundance of online resources. Alternatively, Mike could, just as you suggest, get himself up to the level of knowledge enjoyed by a Filler, and match up on today's equipment.

No matter how you slice it, these time travel matches are awfully hard to handicap! Still, we can fantasize, right?

I think the only real thing that Mike would have to learn would be the safety play, kicking and the jump cue. If Mike was 25 years old again it would be no problem he would master what ever is required. Beyond that, Mike had all the tools his talent can't be denied. He would be a top player today.

 

[BasementDweller]

The game was more interesting for the same reason that today's one pocket can be more interesting to watch when it's two shortstops playing instead of two world beaters -- there's just more variety. Today's top tier players have such high make percentages that the game just loses a lot of its suspense. When lesser players play, there are more interesting situations faced, and decisions made. Also, before the break (and rack) was properly understood, the game had more variety even if this was partially due to ignorance.

The more I think about it -- ignorance really is bliss when reminiscing about pool's glory days.