Who are better pool players????

N

nevadarain

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know this is a tough question as you're comparing people from different eras, where things change, evolve, etc... It's like comparing (or maybe not lmao) Derek jetter to Mickey Mantle,.. You get my drift lol.

But I'm wondering who do you think are/were better pool players,.... The guys today, or the guys from back in the day. I would really like to here the opinions of people who have played, or seen both generation of players play. I personally think the players from back in the day, who played 1 pocket, and 3 cushion for example were better players as it seems like their shots were more difficult, and you had to have a lot of imagination when making some of those shots (not that you don't need imagination in today's games of 8 ball and 9 ball). But when you only have 1 pocket shoot it, it just seems more difficult, but maybe statistics say otherwise. Just something I was thinking about as I was watching some 1 pocket and 3 pocket videos,... And I watched these really talented guys in New York over the weekend play just bank shot pool.

EDIT 11:00PM EST

Ok makes sense from the responses, and I looked at a few older threads. So let me do better and narrow, Lets focus on Bank shooters from Now and then? Is that a better question? all things being equal as far as equipment (cloth, table, cues). I think old school had a better understanding of angles and bank shooting than new school.
 
Last edited:
During his match commentary, Danny DiLiberto has addressed this point a number of times. His opinion is that the top players of yesterday and the top players of today are pretty much equally skilled but that more such top players exist today. That sounds reasonable to me.

Here's a thread on the same subject from 2011: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=252337
 
Future players are definitely better! I had a rare chance to see some of the players in 2040, they were awesome!!!!!

This comes up quite often on here and will eventually turn into a easier table, better cloth,better balls, better cues, mosconi vs efren thred! I. Gonna sit here and wait!
 
nevadarain said:
I know this is a tough question as you're comparing people from different eras, where things change, evolve, etc... It's like comparing (or maybe not lmao) Derek jetter to Mickey Mantle,.. You get my drift lol.

But I'm wondering who do you think are/were better pool players,.... The guys today, or the guys from back in the day. I would really like to here the opinions of people who have played, or seen both generation of players play. I personally think the players from back in the day, who played 1 pocket, and 3 cushion for example were better players as it seems like their shots were more difficult, and you had to have a lot of imagination when making some of those shots (not that you don't need imagination in today's games of 8 ball and 9 ball). But when you only have 1 pocket shoot it, it just seems more difficult, but maybe statistics say otherwise. Just something I was thinking about as I was watching some 1 pocket and 3 pocket videos,... And I watched these really talented guys in New York over the weekend play just bank shot pool.
Click to expand...

I do not think that it is a fair question to ask, because the table condition and cues from the olden days were nothing like the cue tech and table conditions of today. If you were to transport the young elite players of today back to the 60's for example, and make them play with the equipment from that era, they would have no chance against the pros from that era. I guess the same could be said if the pros from the 60's were transported 50 years into the future. They would probably have no chance playing the top players of todays era. And I think the same could be same if you were to take the top players from the 60's, and transport them back to the 20's (and vice versa) . I might be completely wrong though. What do you think? Are there players from the past or present that you think could get used to any type of table conditions, or pool cue equipment of any era from the past (or future in their case)? Earl Strickland for example has competed at a very high level going through several eras, and many different table conditions (and cue tech that has changed throughout the years), right?
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
During his match commentary, Danny DiLiberto has addressed this point a number of times. His opinion is that the top players of yesterday and the top players of today are pretty much equally skilled but that more such top players exist today. That sounds reasonable to me.

Here's a thread on the same subject from 2011: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=252337
Click to expand...

I would add, one other item. The players from years ago were better gamblers, as they were weaned off the depression era greats such as Lassiter/Crane/Balsis/Mosconi/Hoppe etc. this is why the Pinoys are so great, it's hand ta mouth like it was in our depression era, therefore you learn to WIN the hard way ''all the time''.
When you have to win to eat or not eat, you always wanted to make a game or get some kind of action to feed yourself, and if ya lost ya still came back and adjusted if need be. Players back then gambled everywhere, and got out of line everywhere and would empty out, and the winner most always would give some walking money to make sure you came back to play again.
 
the topic is constantly raised in every sport, an interesting anecdote imo,

Max Kellerman shocked me recently when he casually stated that Jesse Owens would get smoked by today's top sprinters, several months ago our fastest sprinter Andre De Grasse who has clocked a 9.92 ran on a dirt track in old boots and hit 11 seconds...Owens was 10.3

I used to be of the belief that "modern' athletes were better, faster, stronger, etc......

not so sure nowadays as there is a ton of anecdotal evidence out there to suggest old timers were often better than their modern counterparts

in Pool, Willie Mosconi was without a doubt the greatest ever of his generation, he
referred to Raymond Ceulemans as a better cueman than himself

would you take Mosconi or even 9 Ball King Luther Lassiter over a prime
Earl/Efren/Shane if your entire bankroll was on the line?

For that matter, would you take Shane over a prime Earl/Efren?

Or a prime Ceulemans over Torbjorn Blomdahl?

The arguments in favour of one school of thought over the other can never really be proven nor disproven

ironically the Twilight Zone's 'game of pool' episode which was fabulous (of course that series is in the GOAT conversation) is what I'd likely set up if I had say a time machine, or unlimited super powers, lol......i.e. matching the best players of all time against eachother
 
smashmouth said:
Max Kellerman shocked me recently when he casually stated that Jesse Owens would get smoked by today's top sprinters, several months ago our fastest sprinter Andre De Grasse who has clocked a 9.92 ran on a dirt track in old boots and hit 11 seconds...Owens was 10.3.
Click to expand...

I think if you gave Owens all the same advantages that Bolt enjoys as a sprinter today it would be much closer than Kellerman thinks.
 
mvp said:
Future players are definitely better! I had a rare chance to see some of the players in 2040, they were awesome!!!!!

This comes up quite often on here and will eventually turn into a easier table, better cloth,better balls, better cues, mosconi vs efren thred! I. Gonna sit here and wait!
Click to expand...

But it ends with nazis. Every time.
 
AtLarge said:
During his match commentary, Danny DiLiberto has addressed this point a number of times. His opinion is that the top players of yesterday and the top players of today are pretty much equally skilled but that more such top players exist today. That sounds reasonable to me.

Here's a thread on the same subject from 2011: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=252337
Click to expand...
I agree with this for the most part. Today there is so much more out there to help young players learn the game and its readily available. I do believe that back in day, there were more top 1-3%'ers though. The talent pool of the 80s and early 90s, best of the best, was amazing, especially in the US as compared today. I am happy that we have a good pool of young players today that have the potential to pick up the slack. It's going to be extremely difficult to live up to the Efren, Strickland, Cap Hook, Hall, Mcreedy, Varner, Archer, and the list goes on, of that era... I hope they can get close...
 
justinb386 said:
I do not think that it is a fair question to ask, because the table condition and cues from the olden days were nothing like the cue tech and table conditions of today. If you were to transport the young elite players of today back to the 60's for example, and make them play with the equipment from that era, they would have no chance against the pros from that era. I guess the same could be said if the pros from the 60's were transported 50 years into the future. They would probably have no chance playing the top players of todays era. And I think the same could be same if you were to take the top players from the 60's, and transport them back to the 20's (and vice versa) . I might be completely wrong though. What do you think? Are there players from the past or present that you think could get used to any type of table conditions, or pool cue equipment of any era from the past (or future in their case)? Earl Strickland for example has competed at a very high level going through several eras, and many different table conditions (and cue tech that has changed throughout the years), right?
Click to expand...

A very thoughtful answer. I tend to agree with Danny D. also. To give a specific answer to the last part of the OP's question. I have yet to see anyone who banks better than Eddie Taylor, who I saw play in his prime. I saw him throw a rack of balls on the table, line up the first bank (a long railer), and bank all fifteen balls without a miss. That was just practice though. Taylor actually made 37 banks in a row in a competitive match! Very doubtful that anyone today can make a claim to anything like that.

Bugs, Cannonball and Vernon Elliott were also very impressive bankers, as good as any today, but a notch below Taylor imo. These guys knew all the nuances of holding angles and opening up shots when necessary. They made banks that didn't look like they could go. Taylor used to shoot a cross-side bank that looked like it had to double kiss. He would make it again and again and no one else could make it once! He actually banked balls cross side over the edge of impeding balls. He'd make the banked ball hop off the rail just right to clear the edge of the other ball. No one else tried these shots either.

Unlike most other normal humans, that tend to miss once in a while, Taylor simply did not miss open banks. If somehow he missed one, he would smile and stand there in disbelief as if the ball did not follow his intended path for it. Watching him bank was like watching Mosconi shoot Straight Pool. You never expected either one to miss.
 
Last edited:
:scratchhead:




No, I'm not as good as I was in the 1980's.

And today, there are more good players playing instead of the usual local yokels.


Every town and city had their best player but now a days----there is more than one best player.


I think the safe game changed the game more than the equipment.:frown:



.
 
jay helfert said:
[...]I have yet to see anyone who banks better than Eddie Taylor, who I saw play in his prime. [...]
Click to expand...

Can you, Jay, --or anyone else--come up with an activity that can be measured

swimming
jumping
lifting
throwing
breath holding
running

in which someone from several decades ago outperforms the best of today?

I'm not saying there aren't any. But I know it is decidedly not true for the ones I have checked.

It would be a curious thing if every time you can actually measure, performance today is better. And for the activities you can't measure the old timers measured up to the best of today.
 
smashmouth said:
Max Kellerman shocked me recently when he casually stated that Jesse Owens would get smoked by today's top sprinters, several months ago our fastest sprinter Andre De Grasse who has clocked a 9.92 ran on a dirt track in old boots and hit 11 seconds...Owens was 10.3
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Considering Tinus Osendarp of the Netherlands finished in third place with a time that was 0.2s slower than Owens, the above logic would suggest that this white dude would smoke Andre De Grasse if he competed today.

I don't think that experiment says much other than today's sprinters are not accumstomed to running with old boots on a dirt track.
 
mikepage said:
Can you, Jay, --or anyone else--come up with an activity that can be measured

swimming
jumping
lifting
throwing
breath holding
running

in which someone from several decades ago outperforms the best of today?

I'm not saying there aren't any. But I know it is decidedly not true for the ones I have checked.

It would be a curious thing if every time you can actually measure, performance today is better. And for the activities you can't measure the old timers measured up to the best of today.
Click to expand...


yep and it's not even close in some cases.

Shot put at the 1896 Olympics, and the gold medal winner threw 11.22 meters, my son threw farther than that his sophomore year ;) A whopping 180 pounds.

The world record currently sits at 22m. Or approximately 40 feet further than in 1896. That's YUGE :) And the dude is an absolute monster, he's 6'7" and 280 pounds of muscles. If he was around back in 1896 the town folks would have chased him out of town with pitch forks :)
 
Last edited:
Most of you all are talking about sports that are based on physical strength, fast and slow twitch muscle groups, etc.... We're just talking about pool.... And I'm actually not sure why other sports are being mentioned here
 
nevadarain said:
Most of you all are talking about sports that are based on physical strength, fast and slow twitch muscle groups, etc.... We're just talking about pool.... And I'm actually not sure why other sports are being mentioned here
Click to expand...

More information is available today than in the old days. That makes players smarter/better. I agree that the physical part doesn't matter so much, but today's players are better equipped.
 
You don't think pool involves fast and slow twitch muscle groups??? :rolleyes: You'd be completely mistaken!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

nevadarain said:
Most of you all are talking about sports that are based on physical strength, fast and slow twitch muscle groups, etc.... We're just talking about pool.... And I'm actually not sure why other sports are being mentioned here
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top