will there ever be a dominant player on the men's circuit again?

V

vapoolplayer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
we all either read about (people may age....LOL) or saw mosconi (the lucky ones) dominating the pocket billiards arena for a couple decades. nowadays, you just don't see that. i know that archer has a few world championships, and earl has almost fill up your fingers on two hands. but to me it doesn't seem like any one person is dominating pocket billiards today. i'd like to hear everyone's opionion on this.

is it the game of 9 ball? as 14:1 was the game of choice in willie's day. would a different game such as 10 ball, 1 pocket, or 14:1 change this?

is it the caliber of players? it seems anyone in the top 125 in the world or maybe even more could beat any other player in that list on any given day. also its easier for someone to learn how to play pool these days. as i learned from books, videos, personal lessons, etc, etc. before my time from what i've read and been told, you just had to learn by playing and getting your ass handed to you. (which still holds true today.....LOL)

or is it some other reason.

will we see another totally dominant player? allison fisher up until the last few events had a stranglehold on the WPBA for quite a while. will we see this in the mens circuit? or will it be a different winner every month?

thanks
 
I think that the main reason you aren't seeing that is because of the current rules of 9-ball. The current rules don't really showcase who the better players are as much as the rules that they played by 20 years ago did. Not that 9-ball was ever in the league of straight pool or one pocket, as far as strategy is concerned, but the current rules have all but taken any bit of strategy out of the game. I do believe (hope?) that something is going to happen in the not-too-distant future with the rules. Either there will be changes in the rules of 9-ball or the main game will become 10-ball, or something along those lines. When that happens, I think you'll start to see someone (or a few players) start to win in more dominating fashion.
 
vapoolplayer said:
we all either read about (people may age....LOL) or saw mosconi (the lucky ones) dominating the pocket billiards arena for a couple decades. nowadays, you just don't see that. i know that archer has a few world championships, and earl has almost fill up your fingers on two hands. but to me it doesn't seem like any one person is dominating pocket billiards today. i'd like to hear everyone's opionion on this........

or is it some other reason....

will we see another totally dominant player? allison fisher up until the last few events had a stranglehold on the WPBA for quite a while. will we see this in the mens circuit? or will it be a different winner every month?.....



When Mosconi played there were only a handful of players. Today Mosconi would be just another top player. When Mosconi won all of those "world championships" he only had to beat 1-4 players tops at any given time. Today, a champion has to go through at least dozen or more other champions to win a world title or any title for that matter.

Mosconi lived in an easier era to play pool as far as being dominate goes. Today there are at least 20-30 dominate players in the world with about 500+ top players behind them.

Mosconi was great for his era......
Click to expand...
 
vapoolplayer said:
but to me it doesn't seem like any one person is dominating pocket billiards today.

is it the game of 9 ball? as 14:1 was the game of choice in willie's day. would a different game such as 10 ball, 1 pocket, or 14:1 change this?

is it the caliber of players? it seems anyone in the top 125 in the world or maybe even more could beat any other player in that list on any given day.
thanks
Click to expand...


There are more players that shoot great pool and they've uped their caliber of play. 9 ball isn't going to prove anything other than who's breaking great that week and on a little hot streak with a few good rolls. The game has to be changed to determine it or a greater variety of games for an all-around best player. 14.1 would do it or possibly even rotation with a different way of scoring than is standard. BTW, Mike Sigel was certainly a dominant player until he just decided to pack it in for making cues or retirement, or whatever he's doing. He was winning EVERYTHING at one point and there were certainly a lot of great players around at the time, many of which are still here.

Maybe someone needs to invent an entirely new game using all the balls, all of the pockets and every facet of shooting, kicking, banking, breaking, and safeties to bring out the best in each player every rack.
 
Last edited:
Bring back 14.1 and we will see.

I still beleive that Mosconi is the greatest ever. 14.1 is more of a standard based game. In other words you can judge how good you are without having to play anyone. Mosconi ran well over 500 balls in an exibition and stopped only because he was tired. If you bring back 14.1 their would be more of a standard based measuring stick to see who the best is and yes I believe one or two players would begin to dominate. However, 14.1 isn't good for t.v. so I doubt it will happen.

Thanks,
Marcus
 
mnorwood said:
Mosconi ran well over 500 balls in an exibition and stopped only because he was tired.
Click to expand...

I think this has never been confirmed. No one seem to say for sure how Mosconi's magical 526 ended. Did he get tired and quit, did he get hooked, did he miss... ?

I think pool is very difficult to dominate. While being a player against player sport (game ? Another thread...) I don't think there has been any player with a winning streak of more than 50 matches in top level tournaments. But, I'll give you something to compare. In squash there has been one above others, Pakistan's Jahangir Khan. Quotes from his sport dominance:

"Jahangir not only dominated the sport, he redefined it. In 1979, he won the World Amateur title at the age of fifteen. Two years later, in Toronto, he became the youngest ever winner of the World Open Championship. Less then six months after that, he collected his first British Open . Still only twenty, his rule was absolute. His undefeated run stretched to an incredible five years, seven months and one day. During that period, he played with such devastating authority that only one player - Hiddy Jahan took him to five games." (Squash is played to 3 sets...so best of five)

"As he scorched his way to sporting immortality, Jahangir left a trail of over five hundred successive victories behind him. Week after week, he put his life on the line and came through unscathed. His command was total. He created an enormous psychological barrier for his opponents. All that they could hope for were respectable losing scores against him."

500 successive victories !! :eek:
 
Jimmy M. said:
I think that the main reason you aren't seeing that is because of the current rules of 9-ball. The current rules don't really showcase who the better players are as much as the rules that they played by 20 years ago did. Not that 9-ball was ever in the league of straight pool or one pocket, as far as strategy is concerned, but the current rules have all but taken any bit of strategy out of the game. I do believe (hope?) that something is going to happen in the not-too-distant future with the rules. Either there will be changes in the rules of 9-ball or the main game will become 10-ball, or something along those lines. When that happens, I think you'll start to see someone (or a few players) start to win in more dominating fashion.
Click to expand...

Bravo, Jimmy. I strongly agree. Texas Express Nine Ball has too big a luck factor to enable anybody to dominate. Contrastingly, straight pool races to 150 on 4 1/2 inch pockets ensured that each player usually saw the table many times. Yes, there were some one and two inning games, but only a handful of players in history averaged more than ten balls per inning (safeties counting as zero), meaning that even at top level, each player saw the table many times in a typical match. so the cream easily rose to the top.
 
sjm said:
Bravo, Jimmy. I strongly agree. Texas Express Nine Ball has too big a luck factor to enable anybody to dominate. Contrastingly, straight pool races to 150 on 4 1/2 inch pockets ensured that each player usually saw the table many times. Yes, there were some one and two inning games, but only a handful of players in history averaged more than ten balls per inning (safeties counting as zero), meaning that even at top level, each player saw the table many times in a typical match. so the cream easily rose to the top.
Click to expand...

Jimmy M. and SJM are completely right here. Either 14.1 with races to 150 or 9-ball races at least to 15 would lessen the luck factor. 9-ball races to 7 are a joke and don't really support the more skillful players as they can be more easily eliminated by a sheer luck factor with dry breaks or lucky shots from opponent. Also, wider pockets increase the luck factor slightly as more shots can be made with lesser skills. I wonder how many different winners we would have in 9-ball tournaments if all matches were to be played to 15, 17 or 21 points on tight tables? I'd bet there would be only a handful of top pros there.
 
Big Bubble Burst.

Willie's famous 526 run was on a 4 X 8 with at least 4.3/4 inch pockets. The only amazing thing about this feat was that he didn't scratch earlier then he did. I saw the table in Pekin, IL and talked to the VERY FEW who saw it.

TY & GL
 
it's 9ball.

it is a game that allows a hot, lesser player(a shooter) to beat a great player. the entry level of 9ball is very low. this makes it difficult for even a great player to dominate. it is not a game that tests skill. any A player and above can run out an open table. the game only gets interesting when safeties are involved.

the cream will always rise to the top in a game like 14.1 or snooker.
 
Last edited:
more games

play more games per set and the cream will rise to the top. short sets are only good for ratings! :cool:
 
drivermaker said:
BTW, Mike Sigel was certainly a dominant player until he just decided to pack it in for making cues or retirement, or whatever he's doing. He was winning EVERYTHING at one point and there were certainly a lot of great players around at the time, many of which are still here.

.
Click to expand...

good point, i thought about mentioning sigel, but i didn't want people debating whether or not he was the dominant player.....LOL. on a side note, sigel is my favorite player to watch video's of. i learn alot every time, his position and shot selection are as close to perfect as one can get. i wonder how his record would look now if he had been playing all this time.

thanks
 
mjantti said:
I think this has never been confirmed. No one seem to say for sure how Mosconi's magical 526 ended. Did he get tired and quit, did he get hooked, did he miss... ?
:
Click to expand...

He Missed! Mentioned in many articles!
 
Of all the players today, I feel that Corey Deuel has the potential to be a dominating force. Everytime I see him play, he appears to be playing at the same level as the other top players without having reached his full potential. His kicking and general shotmaking is so outrageous, if he ups his game that little bit he may very well be the Tiger Woods of pool.
 
henho said:
I feel that Corey Deuel has the potential to be a dominating force. if he ups his game that little bit he may very well be the Tiger Woods of pool.
Click to expand...


That's where the conflict comes in...he wants to be the Tiger Woods of GOLF.
 
Unless they tighten the tables up to where only the very best shot maker can pocket a ball, or loosen them back up to normal size pockets to where the power players can show their game, I don't think you will have anyone dominate the way it used to be. I favor going back to the normal size pockets, play winner breaks, and put some excitement back in nine ball.
Chris
www.hightowercues.com
 
I prefer 10 ball, winner breaks on Diamond Pros...4.5" pockets with deep shelf. It's the deep shelf that'l drive you nuts.
 
It's too often forgotten that the ten-ball experiment was tried on the Camel tour for a full season. I believe it was in 1998, but I'm not 100% certain, and I can remember attending two of the events live. While it's true that ten-ball takes a lot of the luck associated with the break out of the equation, in all other respects it's the same as nine ball, meaning, a) slop counts, b) racks are won with unintended safeties, and c) the results are, far too often, randomized by what happens in the kicking game. Neither the fans who attended those Camel events in 1998 nor the pros who participated in them seem to be begging for the return of ten ball.
 
Well Sigel quit because the game was too easy for him. 150 and out twice in tournament play. Then he came back last year to see if anything changed and proved that people still can't beat him so he quit again.

He left the game twice, on top both times.

Since no one can beat him, and there is no money in it for him, why should he compete?

But seriously, there just are too many players out there now who can win a match against anyone for any one person to be dominant. In Mosconi's time how many really great players were there? Would Mosconi be as great if he had to play Sigel in his prime? Or any of the top players of today on a daily basis?

Jake
 
10 Ball Was Invented Becauseof Billie Johnson

BILLIE JOHNSON (Wade Crane) was dominating all 9 ball ring games back when the Burlington, IA tourneys were going that they started to play 10 ball to off-set his break. Didn't work. He still broke & ran better than anyone at that time.

TY & GL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top