Ranking one pocket players

Whom ever put the top ten list out there for players on this site need to go back and start with Tall Jeff and Incardona instead of halfway or near the bottom.

Also are you ranking players in their prime or today. Jeff and Cardona were mid evil nine ball players and were known for it in every pool room in the country. But both were devastating one holers too.

I do understand you can't rank a player by just his ability to run eight and out. And I do see that some believe that to be great one holer you have to run eight and out more than the other guy. That is the farthest thing from the truth. If you were to play Jersey Red or Ronnie Allen one pocket you would truly know what never getting to shoot at your hole was all about.

And the list that was made by whomever, I would have played every one of them in my prime in 70 or 71 and I did play at least 1 or 2 of them. Even though I won the nine ball division in 1970 Johnston City, my bread and butter was one pocket. I loved the game and still do, just don't take the time to play. My kids and grand kids don't allow it, LOL.

The subject of running a hundred balls in 14 and 1 is a big deal per someone's post I read. If a player can't run a hundred balls, he is a shortstop period and has no business in a major tournament unless he just wants to contribute to the cause.

Of the hundred plus players of the Johnston City and Stardust era of 70 and 71 which I played in once or twice, the top 70 or so players could run a hundred balls playing 14 and 1. Also most of them didn't care for the game, but they could definitely run a hundred balls and I doubt you could put together a field like that today!

Also when anyone on this site makes a list, start with Tall Jeff and Incardona don't finish it with them! And I don't care which game it is, unless it's three cushion! And then you start it with Boston Shorty!

BACK IN THE DAY LIFE WAS GOOD! GO FIGURE.

Keith I hope you got a private message from MobileMike.
He called me and asked for your#, I didn't have it and suggested he send you a PM.
Rodney
P.S. His friend and yours (Joe) is ill and wanted to talk to you or Tommy.

Ross Keith Thompson said:

Whom ever put the top ten list out there for players on this site need to go back and start with Tall Jeff and Incardona instead of halfway or near the bottom.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but no...because the list is in accordance with how players from this site are playing in 7/1/15, not 7/1/70...and don't worry, I was watching Billy I. play 9ball back then - and I know that nobody played better.

- Ghost

Ross Keith Thompson said:

Of the hundred plus players of the Johnston City and Stardust era of 70 and 71 which I played in once or twice, the top 70 or so players could run a hundred balls playing 14 and 1. Also most of them didn't care for the game, but they could definitely run a hundred balls and I doubt you could put together a field like that today!

Also when anyone on this site makes a list, start with Tall Jeff and Incardona don't finish it with them! And I don't care which game it is, unless it's three cushion! And then you start it with Boston Shorty!

BACK IN THE DAY LIFE WAS GOOD! GO FIGURE.

Click to expand...

The pockets were bigger/easier back then. Many of those guys wouldn't break 50 on today's equipment.

The elite, like perhaps Mosconi, Greenleaf, Lassiter, Balsis, Crane, and Caras would.

The rest, no chance.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa said:

The pockets were bigger/easier back then. Many of those guys wouldn't break 50 on today's equipment.

The elite, like perhaps Mosconi, Greenleaf, Lassiter, Balsis, Crane, and Caras would.

The rest, no chance.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

Kelly, Butera, Mierak, Gartner, Hubbard, Schwartz, Margo, Russo, Riggy, Nagy, West, Ervolina, Colavita, Diliberto, Murphy, Martin, Garcia, Willis, and more Lou.

Dr. Bill

Keith,

Thanks for the kind words, but it's a different world today, I'm in terrible pool playing shape! The guys posting here are talking about today's pecking order, on this site, and they are correct to not include me in the top 10, I doubt I would make the top 20 as of today.

I have been trying to play again (about 12 times) and feel I'm making some progress, but it's slow, and it's painful to watch!! I laid off so many years it's almost like I have to learn everything all over again. Pocketing balls is very difficult and controlling the CB is impossible for me at the present time. I feel lost at times, but I ain't quitting!!

We are having a Super Senior One Pocket Tournament at Bogies on 1960 in late October, 70 years old and over. If I can just get to a respectable level by then, I'll be happy with that.

wincardona said:

Kelly, Butera, Mierak, Gartner, Hubbard, Schwartz, Margo, Russo, Riggy, Nagy, West, Ervolina, Colavita, Diliberto, Murphy, Martin, Garcia, Willis, and more Lou.

Dr. Bill

Click to expand...

OK.

But that would still leave us short of 70+ 100 ball runners, who did not care for 14.1, from the JC era.

My central point was that your run-of-the-mill player, who might reel off an occasional 100 back then, would not be doing so, at their leisure, on today's equipment. Several of the guys you mention were 14.1 specialists and not from the pertinent time frame mentioned by the OP.

Lou Figueroa

i would rather bet now than way back then on running a big number of balls.
mostly because the old tables were slow and the balls didnt break open very easily in any of the games. now the tables have tighter pockets, but the balls are more lively and the tables are fast.
this makes for open tables and easy to get the cue ball around to where you need it. that is more important than maybe missing a shot because the pocket is tighter.

just look at nine ball for instance. the break is the whole game. you make a ball most times on the break and the balls are open. on the old tables the break sometimes was not an advantage or wasnt much of one as you usually didnt make one and if you did the balls werent open on many of the tables.

beatle said:

i would rather bet now than way back then on running a big number of balls.
mostly because the old tables were slow and the balls didnt break open very easily in any of the games. now the tables have tighter pockets, but the balls are more lively and the tables are fast.
this makes for open tables and easy to get the cue ball around to where you need it. that is more important than maybe missing a shot because the pocket is tighter.

just look at nine ball for instance. the break is the whole game. you make a ball most times on the break and the balls are open. on the old tables the break sometimes was not an advantage or wasnt much of one as you usually didnt make one and if you did the balls werent open on many of the tables.

Click to expand...

I've played 14.1 since I was a teenager, playing at Palace and Cochran's in SF. Over the years I've won a few minor 14.1 things including a qualifier for the World and have a 100 ball run on YouTube. Like I said, small stuff.

And there is no way I'd prefer betting today v yesteryear. Yes, the balls are livelier today but with bigger pockets you have way more leeway on your position play and ball pocketing which mean you can play a different style 14.1, running balls and taking a rack apart. Today's game requires more precision and not everyone is running off 100s. You cannot be out of line anywhere near as much running balls today.

Lou Figueroa

gulfportdoc said:

In that case John "Mr. 400" Schmidt of our modern times, might have been "Mr. 600" of yesteryear...

~Doc

Click to expand...

Probably. It's also the reason he's not Mr. 600 now.

Lou Figueroa

Billy is right as usual. For example: Russo won the all around at the Stardust and the straight pool at Johnson City against fields that were equal to today and maybe even a bit more determined. That group were hard nosed players and would eat you heart for $5.00...

Nagy might never miss for $100, most of them would run 100 every day and many into their late 70's. What about Whimpy. In the early 70's no one was looking to play the Miz 1500 pts. (I was there). Butera would go around to rooms to do exhibitions set up a break shot and run 100 in 15 minutes, I saw it twice!!! amazing. Don't forget Balsis, "The Meat Man". Crane's safety play ranked with anyone in the world maybe the best. But in the end no one, I mean no one out shot Mosconi. yes, big pockets and new cloth, but in a class by himself at least in his prime.

I also think playing on todays' equipment is easier than the older, slower tables in spite of the pocket size.

I seldom saw many runs in one pocket of 10 or more in the Old Days. Now it is comonplace.

Everything is more predictable and the balls open up so easily.

Mosconi would probably run 1000 on todays' tables.

Most of you probingly don't know but Mosconi used to play on a 5X10 with 4" pockets called "Bertha the Box" in Philly.

He would give the best players of the day the 5 ball and beat them all. He was the only player that could run out playing 9 ball on that table.

Bill S.

5X10s, 80-20 Stevens directional if they were lucky, 4 in pockets and either clay or worse balls. Basically like playing in mud. Today you would get cramps sitting in the chair waiting for them to miss the way the balls open up now!

Bobbytworails said:

Billy is right as usual. For example: Russo won the all around at the Stardust and the straight pool at Johnson City against fields that were equal to today and maybe even a bit more determined. That group were hard nosed players and would eat you heart for $5.00...

Nagy might never miss for $100, most of them would run 100 every day and many into their late 70's. What about Whimpy. In the early 70's no one was looking to play the Miz 1500 pts. (I was there). Butera would go around to rooms to do exhibitions set up a break shot and run 100 in 15 minutes, I saw it twice!!! amazing. Don't forget Balsis, "The Meat Man". Crane's safety play ranked with anyone in the world maybe the best. But in the end no one, I mean no one out shot Mosconi. yes, big pockets and new cloth, but in a class by himself at least in his prime.

Click to expand...

I think 14.1 was already in decline by the 70's as compared to when straight pool made the front pages of the NYTimes in the 30's and 40's. And as I said previously, the elites like Lassiter, Balsis, Crane, Caras, Greenleaf, and certainly Mosconi could run balls like mad regardless of the equipment.

Lou Figueroa

bstroud said:

I also think playing on todays' equipment is easier than the older, slower tables in spite of the pocket size.

I seldom saw many runs in one pocket of 10 or more in the Old Days. Now it is comonplace.

Everything is more predictable and the balls open up so easily.

Mosconi would probably run 1000 on todays' tables.

Most of you probingly don't know but Mosconi used to play on a 5X10 with 4" pockets called "Bertha the Box" in Philly.

He would give the best players of the day the 5 ball and beat them all. He was the only player that could run out playing 9 ball on that table.

Bill S.

Click to expand...

The reason you see more 10 and outs now is that more players (and higher caliber players), now play 1pocket. Back then it was a hustler's game and fewer players played it and knew the shots and patterns. Ronnie Allen once told me, "Shots it took me years to learn I see 17 year-old kids shooting nowadays."

I agree with you about Mosconi.

Lou Figueroa

Bobbytworails said:

5X10s, 80-20 Stevens directional if they were lucky, 4 in pockets and either clay or worse balls. Basically like playing in mud. Today you would get cramps sitting in the chair waiting for them to miss the way the balls open up now!

Click to expand...

Those were not the general playing conditions.

And if you watch the available footage from Johnston City you can see the pockets were cavernous.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

I think Taylor, Lassiter, Worst and many others played good one pocket. They also played good straight pool.

Even with the big, big pockets at Johnson City you didn't see many 8 and outs.

The cloth and the balls just make it much easier to play well today. That's why there are so many good players.

Bill S.

I believe it was two years ago at he Derby where Jay Helfert held the 5 rack break and shoot again challenge. The challenge was that you would break the balls and start shooting from the position where all balls stopped in. There were several 50's and I believe two runs in the 60's. This is certainly an indication that running balls on today's equipment is easier than on equipment from the 70's and early 80's. Back then if you ran 35 balls that was considered a very good run. Please don't say that the players play better today and they run more balls because there are better players today.:sorry I'm not buying that one, the best players back then were as qualified as the best players of today when we're talking solely about running balls, if not the disparity is negligible. I believe that there are many more good players today compared to back then, but not necessarily better players in terms of playing the game correctly. Yes, the skilled players from the past were players like Kelly, Mizerak, Allen, Taylor, Lassiter, Brett, and many more excellent ball runners. How do you explain that, if it isn't that the equipment today is conducive to running more balls?

Just curious.

Dr. Bill

bstroud said:

Lou,

I think Taylor, Lassiter, Worst and many others played good one pocket. They also played good straight pool.

Even with the big, big pockets at Johnson City you didn't see many 8 and outs.

The cloth and the balls just make it much easier to play well today. That's why there are so many good players.

Bill S.

Click to expand...

Bill, perhaps part of the issue is that those were a short race format so there wasn't as much time. The fields were smaller too. There were just fewer guys playing 1pocket.

Now at the DCC you get 300+ man fields and lots of 8 and outs. The pockets are smaller and the tables tougher. But, there's just more guys playing the game and more and more of them know how to shoot to one pocket, which just was not as common a skill back then. In addition you now have the Asians (and even the Europeans now) playing 1pocket. I don't think many of those JC guys would want any part of Efren & Co.

Lou Figueroa