Ranking one pocket players

lfigueroa · Jul 12, 2015

wincardona said:
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

Just for the shake of redundancy: there are more guys playing 1pocket now and whereas the game used to be something of a "dark art," now everyone, thanks to books like WOP and Accu-Stats and all the streams and the big tourneys knows how to play 1pocket now. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E.

So, since the universe of 1pocket players is now way larger, the general level of play has improved despite tougher tables now becoming the norm rather than being an exception.

None of the old-time 1pocket players would want to play today's best 1pocket practitioners on todays equipment. It would not be close.

And to answer your questions about balls being run, I don't recall, inspite of having a pretty decent pool library, hanging around pool rooms for almost 50 years, and listening to the stories of countless old-time 1pocket players telling their tales from the Accu-Stats booth *anyone* ever mentioning 1pocket ball running contests back in the day. Ever. Maybe it was done occasionally as a prop bet but it wasn't done like it was at the DCC with hundreds of guys going at it.

Those 1pocket high run contests happened at the Derby for many years and I personally watched much of it and occasionally scored some of it. And, as guys got used to doing it they got better at it in spite of the equipment. Today's guys, on JC equipment, might have busted 100.

Lou Figueroa

androd · Jul 12, 2015

lfigueroa said:
Today's guys, on JC equipment, might have busted 100.
Lou Figueroa

:lol

gulfportdoc · Jul 12, 2015

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!

Good points, Bobby. I recall playing Rotation ("61") with clay balls in the late 1950s and early '60s. E.g. they were still using clay balls at Ames' in 1961. It took quite awhile to get the racks spread open. Same with straight pool. I didn't play one-pocket until 1968. I believe they were using phenolic by then.

Occasionally I got to play 3C with ivory balls. THAT was a trip!

~Doc

lfigueroa · Jul 12, 2015

gulfportdoc said:
Good points, Bobby. I recall playing Rotation ("61") with clay balls in the late 1950s and early '60s. E.g. they were still using clay balls at Ames' in 1961. It took quite awhile to get the racks spread open. Same with straight pool. I didn't play one-pocket until 1968. I believe they were using phenolic by then.

Occasionally I got to play 3C with ivory balls. THAT was a trip!

~Doc

And the clay balls would dictate a differ approach running the balls.

Of course the pockets were way bigger, than say a Diamond or shimmed GC, so you could do that.

Lou Figueroa

Cory in dc · Jul 12, 2015

It seems like the skills for 1P and straight are a bit different. A one pocket 8 (or more) and out is likely to involve a bank or three. I don't play much straight pool and could be wrong, but I don't think banks are a big part of high runs. Instead, it seems like controlling the rack and getting good break shots are key.

Possibly, everyone is right. The better conditions of today are more conducive to *predictable* long straight backs, 2 railers, and 3 railers--especially when playing pocket speed. So you get more big runs in 1 pocket now than in the past. In contrast, in straight pool, the ability to fire in the break ball with confidence is probably *really* enhanced by 5" pockets. Ditto for making hidden shots in the rack and post-break shot break outs.

That's my theory at least: fast cloth, good balls, and true rails are a bigger help in 1P than in straight pool. But big pockets are a bigger help in straight pool than in 1P. So nowadays, 1P may be easier while straight pool is harder.

Just a theory.

Cory

bstroud · Jul 12, 2015

Lou,

You really think any modern player would want to play Taylor banks or one pocket even?

How do you beat someone that seldom missed a shot and almost never missed a bank.

If Taylor played in the bank ring game at the DCC it would be over in an hour or two at most.

Bill S.

Jeff sparks · Jul 12, 2015

bstroud said:
Lou,

You really think any modern player would want to play Taylor banks or one pocket even?

How do you beat someone that seldom missed a shot and almost never missed a bank.

If Taylor played in the bank ring game at the DCC it would be over in an hour or two at most.

Bill S.

Might be interesting to post an all time top 10 list of one pocketeers.

I'm including Taylor, Red, Ronnie, and Efren, no matter who else is listed, they will be in my top 10, on any equipment you can find! It would be hard to imagine any four modern players that could beat these 4 players, regardless of pocket size or type of balls.

lfigueroa · Jul 13, 2015

Cory in dc said:
It seems like the skills for 1P and straight are a bit different. A one pocket 8 (or more) and out is likely to involve a bank or three. I don't play much straight pool and could be wrong, but I don't think banks are a big part of high runs. Instead, it seems like controlling the rack and getting good break shots are key.

Possibly, everyone is right. The better conditions of today are more conducive to *predictable* long straight backs, 2 railers, and 3 railers--especially when playing pocket speed. So you get more big runs in 1 pocket now than in the past. In contrast, in straight pool, the ability to fire in the break ball with confidence is probably *really* enhanced by 5" pockets. Ditto for making hidden shots in the rack and post-break shot break outs.

That's my theory at least: fast cloth, good balls, and true rails are a bigger help in 1P than in straight pool. But big pockets are a bigger help in straight pool than in 1P. So nowadays, 1P may be easier while straight pool is harder.

Just a theory.

Cory

Banks are relatively unusual running balls at 14.1 unless you're Efren

I believe part of all this is that there's more 1pocket being played in recent years, while 14.1 has been in decline since it's heyday. 14.1 is stilling kicking through the good efforts of a few that keep it going with tournaments and the high run competition at the DCC.

With so many good players now playing 1pocket the quality of play has gone up in spite of the tougher equipment.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
Lou,

You really think any modern player would want to play Taylor banks or one pocket even?

How do you beat someone that seldom missed a shot and almost never missed a bank.

If Taylor played in the bank ring game at the DCC it would be over in an hour or two at most.

Bill S.

Bill, I would have to defer to someone like John Brumback on the Taylor/banks question. My feeling is that Taylor was, somewhat like Mosconi, a savant at his specialty and would still be a dominant force today, though his runs would be shorter because of the smaller targets.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa · Jul 13, 2015

Jeff sparks said:
Might be interesting to post an all time top 10 list of one pocketeers.

I'm including Taylor, Red, Ronnie, and Efren, no matter who else is listed, they will be in my top 10, on any equipment you can find! It would be hard to imagine any four modern players that could beat these 4 players, regardless of pocket size or type of balls.

I think most would consider Efren a modern day player. Certainly not from the same era as the other three you mention.

Lou Figueroa

bstroud · Jul 13, 2015

Lou,

I think the thing you are missing is not about the equipment. Modern vs. Historic.

The main thing is a players desire to win. That one thing transcends everything else.

Speaking of Banks: When I was with Taylor I once asked him what was the most banks he ran in a row. He said it was 33 in a gambling match. Four 8 and outs and one more ball. That was with clay balls and slow cloth. It's obviously not just about making whatever bank comes up but position play as well. Taylor had a way of making the pockets bigger when he banked. He said all banks are just push shots.

Eddy wasn't known for 14-1 but when Miz was world champ Taylor gave Bennie the same straight pool game that Miz lost with and won. I was watching. Beanie won the first two games and then it was 50 and out game after game until Beanie quit.

Pool is about the man. Not the equipment.

I complain about it a lot because it is totally different from the conditions I learned under. I feel like I am starting all over. It's hard work and takes a lot of time.

Bill S.

petie · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
Lou,

I think the thing you are missing is not about the equipment. Modern vs. Historic.

The main thing is a players desire to win. That one thing transcends everything else.

Speaking of Banks: When I was with Taylor I once asked him what was the most banks he ran in a row. He said it was 33 in a gambling match. Four 8 and outs and one more ball. That was with clay balls and slow cloth. It's obviously not just about making whatever bank comes up but position play as well. Taylor had a way of making the pockets bigger when he banked. He said all banks are just push shots.

Eddy wasn't known for 14-1 but when Miz was world champ Taylor gave Bennie the same straight pool game that Miz lost with and won. I was watching. Beanie won the first two games and then it was 50 and out game after game until Beanie quit.

Pool is about the man. Not the equipment.

I complain about it a lot because it is totally different from the conditions I learned under. I feel like I am starting all over. It's hard work and takes a lot of time.

Bill S.

John Brumback also has a way to play the pockets larger. Also, several years ago I was with Freddie for an afternoon and I told him that I thought bank players had no backstroke but rather pushed all their shots. He said that yes they did and gave me the reason they did but it went in one ear and out the other.

John Brumback · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
Lou,

You really think any modern player would want to play Taylor banks or one pocket even?

How do you beat someone that seldom missed a shot and almost never missed a bank.

If Taylor played in the bank ring game at the DCC it would be over in an hour or two at most.

Bill S.

("If") my dog hadn't stopped to take a shit....he would have caught that damn rabbit. See how dumb that sounds? That's what I think of when I read your last words there.

I grew up playing on slow rubber backed cloth buckets for pockets too. IMO an 8 playing banks today ( on a Diamond table) is about like running a 20 or so back then. ( banking was easy back then.. the pockets played like they were a foot wide!!!. They had rubber on the rails and the balls were round too. John B.

John Brumback · Jul 13, 2015

petie said:
John Brumback also has a way to play the pockets larger. Also, several years ago I was with Freddie for an afternoon and I told him that I thought bank players had no backstroke but rather pushed all their shots. He said that yes they did and gave me the reason they did but it went in one ear and out the other.

Petie,Bank players push their shots?? That is utter BS for a lack of better words. A hit is a hit. You can only hit the cue ball one time.Doesn't really matter what you do before you hit the cue ball one time

.That might be why it went in one ear and out the other

John B.

wincardona · Jul 13, 2015

John Brumback said:
("If") my dog hadn't stopped to take a shit....he would have caught that damn rabbit. See how dumb that sounds? That's what I think of when I read your last words there.

I grew up playing on slow rubber backed cloth buckets for pockets too. IMO an 8 playing banks today ( on a Diamond table) is about like running a 20 or so back then. ( banking was easy back then.. the pockets played like they were a foot wide!!!. They had rubber on the rails and the balls were round too. John B.

WOW!!:heh Yea..

Dr. Bill

bstroud · Jul 13, 2015

John,

I respect your opinion.

I am only repeating what Taylor told me.

With the balls opening up so easily today it seems it would be easier to run more banks. The thing I notice about Diamonds is that the rubber is very sensitive to angle and speed.

What I see in a perceived push stroke is more consistency for center ball that perhaps results in more banks made.

Bill S.

John Brumback · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
John,

I respect your opinion.

I am only repeating what Taylor told me.

With the balls opening up so easily today it seems it would be easier to run more banks. The thing I notice about Diamonds is that the rubber is very sensitive to angle and speed.

What I see in a perceived push stroke is more consistency for center ball that perhaps results in more banks made.

Bill S.

I agree Bill,Diamonds are very sensitive. And you can miss some little banks that you would think would be hangers. I watched Nick Varner miss 2 little cross corners in a row playing in one of the early dcc's.

I met E. Taylor one time but I wish I could have sat down and talked to him for awhile about banking and the method that he used. I watched a vid of him playing and it looked like we held the cue the same and stroked the same.

John B.

jrhendy · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
John,

I respect your opinion.

I am only repeating what Taylor told me.

With the balls opening up so easily today it seems it would be easier to run more banks. The thing I notice about Diamonds is that the rubber is very sensitive to angle and speed.

What I see in a perceived push stroke is more consistency for center ball that perhaps results in more banks made.

Bill S.

I never got to watch Taylor play, but wasn't he heads above any other players in his time frame? Maybe the tighter pockets we play on today would have slowed him down some, but the other factors like the balls opening up and more consistent equipment would be in his favor. RA spoke highly of him and he did not do that too often.

Bill are you coming to Houston? I know you do not care for tournaments, but there should be some action. I will fire a few barrels at you myself.:

bstroud · Jul 13, 2015

John Brumback said:
I agree Bill,Diamonds are very sensitive. And you can miss some little banks that you would think would be hangers. I watched Nick Varner miss 2 little cross corners in a row playing in one of the early dcc's.

I met E. Taylor one time but I wish I could have sat down and talked to him for awhile about banking and the method that he used. I watched a vid of him playing and it looked like we held the cue the same and stroked the same. John B.

John,

From what I have observed of you playing your playing style is similar to Taylor. He held the cue away from his body and seemed to have great alignment.

During the 8 months we traveled together I did most of the playing. No one wanted to play with him in the South. He was in his 30s then and had been on the road since he was 13.

The few times he did play I was very impressed. He played in a ring game in Macon with the best players of that time. He was the last man standing.

Got in a Snooker game with Sammy Blumenthal getting 3 or 5 points and banked the 5,6 and and end rail banked the 7 to get us even on a really tight table.

Played RA even one handed one pocket in Vegas. Taylor won so easily it was hard to believe. Straight back banks with the cue ball mid table looked like hangers. He would just stiff them and play position.

In practice bank pool with me in Memphis he banked 14 and missed a cross side for the last ball. That was one handed to my two.

Got in action a few other times and always won.

I was pretty young then but I played very well. Taylor showed me shots, including banks that I have never seen anyone else shoot and make.

Bill S.

lfigueroa · Jul 13, 2015

bstroud said:
Lou,

I think the thing you are missing is not about the equipment. Modern vs. Historic.

The main thing is a players desire to win. That one thing transcends everything else.

Speaking of Banks: When I was with Taylor I once asked him what was the most banks he ran in a row. He said it was 33 in a gambling match. Four 8 and outs and one more ball. That was with clay balls and slow cloth. It's obviously not just about making whatever bank comes up but position play as well. Taylor had a way of making the pockets bigger when he banked. He said all banks are just push shots.

Eddy wasn't known for 14-1 but when Miz was world champ Taylor gave Bennie the same straight pool game that Miz lost with and won. I was watching. Beanie won the first two games and then it was 50 and out game after game until Beanie quit.

Pool is about the man. Not the equipment.

I complain about it a lot because it is totally different from the conditions I learned under. I feel like I am starting all over. It's hard work and takes a lot of time.

Bill S.

Bill, I agree that pool is more about the man than the equipment, to a certain extent. (But even you, a while back, were kvetching about the measles ball.) Regardless I think its fair to say that more demanding equipment weeds out poorer performers.

If the tables are more forgiving more guys will flourish. Some might even become legends, even as they fray the cloth on the rail, constantly hitting several inches up from the actual pocket. Other guys will adjust, or some might not need to simply because their accuracy is that good to begin with.

Lou Figueroa

Ranking one pocket players

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member