The Squeeze

spiderwebcomm · Jan 13, 2017

In 2017, are there any top one pocket players who incorporate the same style squeeze game as what Hopkins or Fusco did in their prime or has everything evolved into a more offensive, explosive style?

lll · Jan 13, 2017

i am curious what others say
but to me all the top players (efren /alex/even scott nowadays)
all play top notch safeties to squeeze you into an error
the difference now compared to then because of the confidence in their shooting ability they go for winning somewhat difficult shots more often compared to days gone by
so yes in a way the mind set is alittle more offensive now but squeezing lives on
remember ronnie allen's famous line
" the best move is 8 and out"
so it wasnt all squeeze in the old day either
one other difference
one pocket is not played very often on a 10 foot table nowadays like before which also leads to more offense
jmho
icbw

LSJohn · Jan 13, 2017

I'd say JJ is closest to the top of the guys who play closest to squeeze.

beatle · Jan 13, 2017

weak players or those that dont shoot well you squeeze.

against good players you cant afford to pass the table to them to shoot very often.

poolisboring · Jan 13, 2017

beatle said:
weak players or those that dont shoot well you squeeze.

against good players you cant afford to pass the table to them to shoot very often.

i agree...........

El Chapo · Jan 14, 2017

Ok, may ramble on a little here, but this is a topic I've thought about a bit and I feel I've figured it out but I could be wrong.

Sometimes it helps to not even think about pool but to use an analogy. What if you were the king of a territory and you were vying to take over other territories ruled by other kings. You can never gain any territories and outdo the other kings if you're not on the attack often. If you just sit there in your castle never on the offensive you're almost a loser from the start. So, in the end, maybe there were 8 kings total. The winner of the entire kingdom was an offensive king. Maybe three other kings were offensive too. There were four kings who were defensive, and the big difference between them and the offensive kings is the defensive ones never really had a chance to win.

Let's just say for the sake of argument billy i moves better than svb. So, they match up. What should billy do? The first thing a lot of people will say is billy should move, and just keep moving because he's a better mover. See, I think that's wrong. Billy is known to have less offensive abilities than Shane so he's gotta shoot shots he's better than even money to make (which is a hell of a lot of shots if you think about it, banks etc). The reason he's gotta shoot like there's no tomorrow is Shane is certainly going to get a shot he's much better than even money to make much faster because the number of shots he has a great chance to make are so much higher. Billy would therefore need to utilize his moving abilities to maneuver himself into a decent spot, and then shoot aggressively to have any chance at winning.

And that's why when we see the last five guys in a one pocket tournament they're all crazy offensive. It's because they've learned shooting against the bunters they are big winners because the bunters are the kings never leaving their castle always on defense. There's never even a chance for them to score any points.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying but I really believe offense wins for so many reasons. It gets you in stroke, it does the opposite to the other guys, it makes the other guy think "what the hell is he going to do if I leave him over here" which is a huge mental and physical stumbling block.

I think the best proof is if you watch the legends tapes when dalton made his debut there. He wasn't playing the best one pocket is the truth. He was scratching a lot, but he was shooting like a maniac and beating everybody. Similarly, watch some of the matches of Mark Todd at the la open. He actually was making quite a few mistakes in many of his matches, especially the bank pool in my opinion. But he'd get his arm loose and get rolling at some point and just crush people, and players were just outright petrified of a guy shooting at shots like he did.

darmoose · Jan 14, 2017

Mr. El Chapo,

As with most things, when discussing the relative merits of various strategies when approaching the game of one pocket, small things matter. Details like RELATIVE shooting abilities of the two players, as well as knowledge and moving ability matter.

We cannot say without exception that just any great ball pocketer will beat any self described mover (or older style player), can we? If that were true, just any whiz-bang nineballer could step up and immediately take over the one pocket world.

So, we recognize that a certain amout of knowledge and experience is required to play your best one pocket.

Also, one's own definitions of things like what is a tough shot or what is a good shot matter. In my own case, for example, a tough shot is one I must make (and it is probably a difficult shot), while a good shot is one I don't have to make, hanging it might be just as good, but definitely I am able to put the CB in a place where my opponent won't be happy.

Two pure shooters playing one pocket, neither one paying much attention to defense, the better shooter will win most of the time. Two pure movers playing, neither one can make a ball, the better mover will win most of the time. A not so pure shooter playing a not so pure mover, the result is going to depend on their relative offensive/defensive skills.

I would not argue that when ball pocketing skills reach a certain level, like SVB or Danny Smith for example, offensiveness seems to rule the day, but both of those guys have been beaten by lesser shooters who moved better at the time.

No one has ever accused me of being a shooter ( I have my days), but I can beat lots of better shooters if they don't have an adequate respect for the defensive side of the game. My success rate, like everyone's, depends mostly on my ability to judge how much disparity exists, and how much I can overcome. For those of us who are not great shooters, that is the real allure to one pocket.

P.S. Many a King has lost his army trying to lay siege to an impregnable fortress.

LSJohn · Jan 14, 2017

darmoose said:
Mr. El Chapo,

As with most things, when discussing the relative merits of various strategies when approaching the game of one pocket, small things matter. Details like RELATIVE shooting abilities of the two players, as well as knowledge and moving ability matter...

... My success rate, like everyone's, depends mostly on my ability to judge how much disparity exists, and how much I can overcome.

Good post Moose.

I think my success rate depends more on my ability to judge 90-80-70-60-50% shots for what they are, and judging wisely when to shoot them anyway if missing makes me vulnerable.

I've got some "90%-ers" that I miss 20% of the time.

darmoose · Jan 14, 2017

LSJohn said:
Good post Moose.

I think my success rate depends more on my ability to judge 90-80-70-60-50% shots for what they are, and judging wisely when to shoot them anyway if missing makes me vulnerable.

I've got some "90%-ers" that I miss 20% of the time.

EXACTOMUNDO John,

My mantra when playing any kind of serious match is: Make good decisions.

El Chapo · Jan 15, 2017

darmoose said:
Mr. El Chapo,

As with most things, when discussing the relative merits of various strategies when approaching the game of one pocket, small things matter. Details like RELATIVE shooting abilities of the two players, as well as knowledge and moving ability matter.

We cannot say without exception that just any great ball pocketer will beat any self described mover (or older style player), can we? If that were true, just any whiz-bang nineballer could step up and immediately take over the one pocket world.

So, we recognize that a certain amout of knowledge and experience is required to play your best one pocket.

Also, one's own definitions of things like what is a tough shot or what is a good shot matter. In my own case, for example, a tough shot is one I must make (and it is probably a difficult shot), while a good shot is one I don't have to make, hanging it might be just as good, but definitely I am able to put the CB in a place where my opponent won't be happy.

Two pure shooters playing one pocket, neither one paying much attention to defense, the better shooter will win most of the time. Two pure movers playing, neither one can make a ball, the better mover will win most of the time. A not so pure shooter playing a not so pure mover, the result is going to depend on their relative offensive/defensive skills.

I would not argue that when ball pocketing skills reach a certain level, like SVB or Danny Smith for example, offensiveness seems to rule the day, but both of those guys have been beaten by lesser shooters who moved better at the time.

No one has ever accused me of being a shooter ( I have my days), but I can beat lots of better shooters if they don't have an adequate respect for the defensive side of the game. My success rate, like everyone's, depends mostly on my ability to judge how much disparity exists, and how much I can overcome. For those of us who are not great shooters, that is the real allure to one pocket.

P.S. Many a King has lost his army trying to lay siege to an impregnable fortress.

He was asking about top players, that's the way I took it anyway. There's no more bunters like Hopkins winning anymore. Why is that?

To use your last point to illustratate, yes of course many have withstood while laying back on defense in the castle, but in the end they didn't gain anything. They are just as they were before (operating under the assumption that territory gained is analogous to balls scored). The attackers stood to gain something, they had a chance to gain something. And now, they may regroup and come back with the knowledge of that defeat. What does the defensive group have? What did they take a shot at? Just waiting for your opponent to make a mistake isn't going to cut it (or so the stats would make it seem).

I'll admit I'm working backwards. I'm just trying to understand why bunters can't win. And I think it's because when a guy shoots at his hole three times more than a bunter, he figures to win all other things being equal. There were a lot of people calling efrens shots wrong for a great many years, and to me anyway this seemed like a sort of turning point. Those shots have been proven not to be wrong. Attacking, aggressive shots are so strong even when you don't pocket the ball on so many occasions, for the reasons I had mentioned.

sappo · Jan 15, 2017

I understand that in order to win you must make balls but that doesn't mean you cant be selective when it comes to shooting or not shooting. If you think Hopkins or Varner or Billy aren't great ball runners you are very wrong. They were in their day they were 3 of the best shooters alive. So my feeling is all great one pocket champions have to be great shooters!!!! The differences is some great shooters choose to play a "thinking game" more than others. Lets take just one element of a thinking game, let take "playing the score". Many great players/shooters will shoot a lower % shot when the score and the position of the balls are such that based an traditional thinking says playing a safer shot will produce a higher win rate. They feel that when they make the shot they can then get out and win the game. Sometimes it works for them other times it doesn't and they lose that game.

Other great players/shooters will in the same position based on the score and the position of the balls decide to pass on the shot and try lock up his opponent. This player doesn't play the safer shot because he is a lesser shooter but rather because he is "thinking player" that understands the ultimate goal is to win the game and in this instance knows he will win more games playing the safe shot as opposed to shooting at his hole. This great player/shooter has the skills to make this shot at the same % as the 1st shooter he just understands the safer shot at this time is the more correct shot.

I believe that the trend today is to be more offensively aggressive and not to be a "thinking player". Again I say the trend, not all of todays great players are super aggressive but there are sure more of them today than in the past. I also believe that if Shane or Danny or Scott or Alex became "thinking players" and tightened up their games they would continue to win and I believe they would win more!!

Keith

lll · Jan 15, 2017

sappo said:
I understand that in order to win you must make balls but that doesn't mean you cant be selective when it comes to shooting or not shooting. If you think Hopkins or Varner or Billy aren't great ball runners you are very wrong. They were in their day they were 3 of the best shooters alive. So my feeling is all great one pocket champions have to be great shooters!!!! The differences is some great shooters choose to play a "thinking game" more than others. Lets take just one element of a thinking game, let take "playing the score". Many great players/shooters will shoot a lower % shot when the score and the position of the balls are such that based an traditional thinking says playing a safer shot will produce a higher win rate. They feel that when they make the shot they can then get out and win the game. Sometimes it works for them other times it doesn't and they lose that game.

Other great players/shooters will in the same position based on the score and the position of the balls decide to pass on the shot and try lock up his opponent. This player doesn't play the safer shot because he is a lesser shooter but rather because he is "thinking player" that understands the ultimate goal is to win the game and in this instance knows he will win more games playing the safe shot as opposed to shooting at his hole. This great player/shooter has the skills to make this shot at the same % as the 1st shooter he just understands the safer shot at this time is the more correct shot.

I believe that the trend today is to be more offensively aggressive and not to be a "thinking player". Again I say the trend, not all of todays great players are super aggressive but there are sure more of them today than in the past. I also believe that if Shane or Danny or Scott or Alex became "thinking players" and tightened up their games they would continue to win and I believe they would win more!!

Keith

TAP TAP
Agree 100%
Great post Keith

darmoose · Jan 15, 2017

El Chapo said:
He was asking about top players, that's the way I took it anyway. There's no more bunters like Hopkins winning anymore. Why is that?

To use your last point to illustratate, yes of course many have withstood while laying back on defense in the castle, but in the end they didn't gain anything. They are just as they were before (operating under the assumption that territory gained is analogous to balls scored). The attackers stood to gain something, they had a chance to gain something. And now, they may regroup and come back with the knowledge of that defeat. What does the defensive group have? What did they take a shot at? Just waiting for your opponent to make a mistake isn't going to cut it (or so the stats would make it seem).

I'll admit I'm working backwards. I'm just trying to understand why bunters can't win. And I think it's because when a guy shoots at his hole three times more than a bunter, he figures to win all other things being equal. There were a lot of people calling efrens shots wrong for a great many years, and to me anyway this seemed like a sort of turning point. Those shots have been proven not to be wrong. Attacking, aggressive shots are so strong even when you don't pocket the ball on so many occasions, for the reasons I had mentioned.

I get your point, and in the context of the very top pro players, you are right. I am sorry, I didn't stick strictly to the OP's question. Actually, I find it more interesting discussing one pocket as it relates to players like on this board, rather than the professionals, probably cause I think it is difficult to relate to their games. They are fun to watch, but I find I can't take a lot away from how they play the game for my use.

I do think even at the level of the top pros, there is a learning curve they must cultivate to reach the top. As for predictions, I think as the game gets more aggressive at the top level, and we see more great shooters, there will exist more parity. At some point one or more of these guys will begin to adapt Sappo's philosophy. To think more, to play a little tighter, means to win more, even though I can shoot lights out when the time is right.

El Chapo · Jan 15, 2017

Yeah i just totally disagree with that. If those guys tightened up their games they'd lose I believe. That would take them to a totally different spot and their strokes would tighten up and it would give heart and a sense of predictability to their opponents stroke. I think it's proven in the fact that nobody wins and plays like Hopkins anymore. Even though I too find his game to be quite eloquent it's obviously not effective anymore. I don't think it's a huge mystery to be honest I mean you got guys that hate to lose like nothing else, say like Reyes or orcollo, don't you feel these guys would figure it out if they played super super tight and squeeze like and they beat everybody, that they'd keep doing it. But they don't because that don't work. the winning players are going more on instinct I think. Anyway, just an opinion I suppose.

sappo said:
I understand that in order to win you must make balls but that doesn't mean you cant be selective when it comes to shooting or not shooting. If you think Hopkins or Varner or Billy aren't great ball runners you are very wrong. They were in their day they were 3 of the best shooters alive. So my feeling is all great one pocket champions have to be great shooters!!!! The differences is some great shooters choose to play a "thinking game" more than others. Lets take just one element of a thinking game, let take "playing the score". Many great players/shooters will shoot a lower % shot when the score and the position of the balls are such that based an traditional thinking says playing a safer shot will produce a higher win rate. They feel that when they make the shot they can then get out and win the game. Sometimes it works for them other times it doesn't and they lose that game.

Other great players/shooters will in the same position based on the score and the position of the balls decide to pass on the shot and try lock up his opponent. This player doesn't play the safer shot because he is a lesser shooter but rather because he is "thinking player" that understands the ultimate goal is to win the game and in this instance knows he will win more games playing the safe shot as opposed to shooting at his hole. This great player/shooter has the skills to make this shot at the same % as the 1st shooter he just understands the safer shot at this time is the more correct shot.

I believe that the trend today is to be more offensively aggressive and not to be a "thinking player". Again I say the trend, not all of todays great players are super aggressive but there are sure more of them today than in the past. I also believe that if Shane or Danny or Scott or Alex became "thinking players" and tightened up their games they would continue to win and I believe they would win more!!

Keith

FrenchAT · Jan 15, 2017

El Chapo said:
Ok, may ramble on a little here, but this is a topic I've thought about a bit and I feel I've figured it out but I could be wrong.

Sometimes it helps to not even think about pool but to use an analogy. What if you were the king of a territory and you were vying to take over other territories ruled by other kings. You can never gain any territories and outdo the other kings if you're not on the attack often. If you just sit there in your castle never on the offensive you're almost a loser from the start. So, in the end, maybe there were 8 kings total. The winner of the entire kingdom was an offensive king. Maybe three other kings were offensive too. There were four kings who were defensive, and the big difference between them and the offensive kings is the defensive ones never really had a chance to win.

Let's just say for the sake of argument billy i moves better than svb. So, they match up. What should billy do? The first thing a lot of people will say is billy should move, and just keep moving because he's a better mover. See, I think that's wrong. Billy is known to have less offensive abilities than Shane so he's gotta shoot shots he's better than even money to make (which is a hell of a lot of shots if you think about it, banks etc). The reason he's gotta shoot like there's no tomorrow is Shane is certainly going to get a shot he's much better than even money to make much faster because the number of shots he has a great chance to make are so much higher. Billy would therefore need to utilize his moving abilities to maneuver himself into a decent spot, and then shoot aggressively to have any chance at winning.

And that's why when we see the last five guys in a one pocket tournament they're all crazy offensive. It's because they've learned shooting against the bunters they are big winners because the bunters are the kings never leaving their castle always on defense. There's never even a chance for them to score any points.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying but I really believe offense wins for so many reasons. It gets you in stroke, it does the opposite to the other guys, it makes the other guy think "what the hell is he going to do if I leave him over here" which is a huge mental and physical stumbling block.

I think the best proof is if you watch the legends tapes when dalton made his debut there. He wasn't playing the best one pocket is the truth. He was scratching a lot, but he was shooting like a maniac and beating everybody. Similarly, watch some of the matches of Mark Todd at the la open. He actually was making quite a few mistakes in many of his matches, especially the bank pool in my opinion. But he'd get his arm loose and get rolling at some point and just crush people, and players were just outright petrified of a guy shooting at shots like he did.

I love the king analogy however, if all of your soldiers are dead in my mote and at my gates, who's going to defend your castle? Im going to parade my ass right into town on foot without armor. I'm probably (definitely) going to be drunk too. lol

Honestly, I think that the game (Top Players) appears to be more aggressive or offensive because the newer guys are practicing banks, kicks, caroms and those tougher shots more and make them at a much higher percentage than players of the past. Obviously ball count comes into play just as it always has. There are still smart and dumb shots in one pocket depending on the situation and that will never change no matter how offensive the game becomes. Lord knows I needed to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer on multiple occasions for not playing the ball count when i was ahead.

sappo · Jan 16, 2017

El Chapo said:
Yeah i just totally disagree with that. If those guys tightened up their games they'd lose I believe. That would take them to a totally different spot and their strokes would tighten up and it would give heart and a sense of predictability to their opponents stroke. I think it's proven in the fact that nobody wins and plays like Hopkins anymore. Even though I too find his game to be quite eloquent it's obviously not effective anymore. I don't think it's a huge mystery to be honest I mean you got guys that hate to lose like nothing else, say like Reyes or orcollo, don't you feel these guys would figure it out if they played super super tight and squeeze like and they beat everybody, that they'd keep doing it. But they don't because that don't work. the winning players are going more on instinct I think. Anyway, just an opinion I suppose.

where did i say anything about playing super tight or squeezing. you say you totally disagree with what i said, thats your right but I'm still saying a thinking player will win more than a player that shoots the lower % shot and I'm saying the most aggressive players today would win more if they balanced their aggression and their moving.

youngstown · Jan 16, 2017

The Squeeze

Of the best 1p players of today, would you classify all of them as shooters?

Renegade_56 · Jan 16, 2017

One pocket is just like any other game to the point that the person who gets the most shots wins. With this in mind I believe the player who has the knowledge and ability to do more with a given shot, getting more from his shots, especially with moving and safeties, effectively gets more shots, and overall generally wins.

The Squeeze

spiderwebcomm

Verified Member

lll

Verified Member

LSJohn

Verified Member

beatle

Verified Member

poolisboring

Verified Member

El Chapo

Verified Member

darmoose

Verified Member

LSJohn

Verified Member

darmoose

Verified Member

El Chapo

Verified Member

sappo

Verified Member

lll

Verified Member

darmoose

Verified Member

El Chapo

Verified Member

FrenchAT

Verified Member

sappo

Verified Member

youngstown

Verified Member

Renegade_56

Verified Member