The difference in equipment, then and now

Jeff sparks said:

Ok

No amount of conversation about how hard it was to get 8 on the old equipment with the big sloppy pockets vs. getting 8 on the new equipment with the tighter than a frogs butt pockets will convince you, everyone here has stated something to that effect. Some very credible people have expressed this several times.

People are now shooting in the 40's & upwards routinely today in the 5 rack challenge vs players shooting in the 20's during the JC era. If your claim of today's equipment being "way tougher"is true, then please explain how that is possible.
Please don't insult our intelligence with the claim that today's players are just that much better. That just doesn't hold water.

If you can wiggle out of this with a believable explanation, without using the afore mentioned reason, well, I will gladly surrender again.

Off to a match, back later

Jeff

Click to expand...

Well, first off there was Gabe’s 60 and then a few 40s by Mika and maybe Efren, so I don’t believe you can say 40’s and upwards is routine today. In addition, we only have a few anecdotal accounts of players v the 1pocket ghost during the JC era, so we really don’t know what they were doing. But nonetheless, the players of today are better and there are more of them. I don’t think that can really be disputed.

Earlier I mentioned something about viewing the available JC footage. Here are three that I found with a quick search.

ABC WWoS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF04PbV-3rI

Chicago TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekyLXFehvvk

Worst v Shorty

http://untoldstoriesharoldworst.blogspot.com/2011/01/boston-shorty-versus-harold-worst.html

(I know there's another one out there featuring Wimpy v Shorty but I don't have time to look for it now.)

And what I see from viewing these clips is: A.) the pockets were gianormous; B) the “old, nappy, slow cloth” looks pretty quick, with everyone moving the balls around effortlessly; and C.) even a great like Harold Worst could dog a 9ball.

Lou Figueroa

NH Steve said:

...tougher only in one regard -- tournament table pockets will be smaller today than they were in the past. In other ways -- translation: better means easier.

I get the feeling that for you Lou, like the long walks to school when you were a kid, the pockets of old are growing bigger by the day, lol.

Most of us don't see the HUGE advantage in the old equipment that you do, that to you seems to render players that some of us thought were actually great players in the past into mere pedestrian players that would be incapable of accomplishing what today's pretty good players, such as for example Lou F, are capable of accomplishing on today's equipment.

If some of us are wearing rose-tinted glasses regarding the quality of players from the past -- maybe we are to a degree, but no where near to the degree that you are belittling the players from the past (aside from your very short list of "elite" players).

Regarding advances in One Pocket knowledge from then to now, Lou -- we all seem to agree on that. The title of this thread is "The difference in equipment, then and now", not One Pocket knowledge, then and now. That seems to be a nuance that you misunderstand. BTW, I don't think it would take a player from the past very long to catch on to the knowledge advances that they would see if they suddenly appeared today. They already had the personal tools of eye-hand coordination, use of english, aiming systems that worked well for them, and a good touch for position.

Click to expand...

I'm not missing any nuances.

Threads and conversations meander and mostly what I'm doing is responding directly to what others have said and ignoring the occasional insult.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

I think you have missed the distinction between the Gold Crown era started in 1959 and the era of the tables and balls that came before.

With the introduction of the GC came the Brunsco cloth, faster rubber and Centennial balls.

The GC one had pockets that 2 balls would not fit in. I owned one for many years. Because of so many complaints Brunswick came out with the GC two that had bigger pockets.

Before the GC the Brunswick Anniversary was the table of choice and before that the were numerous other Brunswick designs. These tables were very difficult to play on even though the pockets were large by today's standards. Add to that the heavy clay balls and the slow rails and you begin to see why they were very hard to play on. Most rooms had no AC and most tables were not so level.

I watched many players including myself try to run 20 balls in five innings in one pocket. No one could do it. On today's equipment I run 30 balls very easily.
Am I a better player at 74 than I was at 20? Probably not.

The only variable is the change in equipment.

You need to accept the fact that you are incorrect in your assumption that today's tables are more difficult simply because the pockets are smaller. It simply doesn't reflect the facts.

Your other assumption that today's players are better than the players of old is also incorrect. I watched Mosconi play many exhibitions and he never failed to run at least 100 balls. Often it was 200.

Jimmy Moore once ran 700. I have watched Mike Eufemia run 300 balls almost every day he was at the Stardust tournament. All the players would follow Mike into the practice room and bet amongst themselves whether he would beat 300 or not.

I do agree with you that there are more good players today.

Time to wake up.

Bill S.

bstroud said:

Lou,

I think you have missed the distinction between the Gold Crown era started in 1959 and the era of the tables and balls that came before.

With the introduction of the GC came the Brunsco cloth, faster rubber and Centennial balls.

The GC one had pockets that 2 balls would not fit in. I owned one for many years. Because of so many complaints Brunswick came out with the GC two that had bigger pockets.

Before the GC the Brunswick Anniversary was the table of choice and before that the were numerous other Brunswick designs. These tables were very difficult to play on even though the pockets were large by today's standards. Add to that the heavy clay balls and the slow rails and you begin to see why they were very hard to play on. Most rooms had no AC and most tables were not so level.

I watched many players including myself try to run 20 balls in five innings in one pocket. No one could do it. On today's equipment I run 30 balls very easily.
Am I a better player at 74 than I was at 20? Probably not.

The only variable is the change in equipment.

You need to accept the fact that you are incorrect in your assumption that today's tables are more difficult simply because the pockets are smaller. It simply doesn't reflect the facts.

Your other assumption that today's players are better than the players of old is also incorrect. I watched Mosconi play many exhibitions and he never failed to run at least 100 balls. Often it was 200.

Jimmy Moore once ran 700. I have watched Mike Eufemia run 300 balls almost every day he was at the Stardust tournament. All the players would follow Mike into the practice room and bet amongst themselves whether he would beat 300 or not.

I do agree with you that there are more good players today.

Time to wake up.

Bill S.

Click to expand...

Bill your statement " I watched many players including myself try to run 20 balls in five innings in one pocket. No one could do it. On today's equipment I run 30 balls very easily.
Am I a better player at 74 than I was at 20? Probably not.

Should be all anyone with common sense needs to understand that the tables were tougher overall back then.. But then again we are talking about Lou so common sense has no place here

Thanks Hacker.

Perhaps Lou will get it.

Bill S.

onepockethacker said:

Bill your statement " I watched many players including myself try to run 20 balls in five innings in one pocket. No one could do it. On today's equipment I run 30 balls very easily.
Am I a better player at 74 than I was at 20? Probably not.

Should be all anyone with common sense needs to understand that the tables were tougher overall back then.. But then again we are talking about Lou so common sense has no place here

Click to expand...

Look at the videos.

The tables were Hoovers back then and the cloth/balls made it very easy to move the balls on.

Lou Figueroa

When you take a table that's had Simonis on it and then put some Mali rubber backed cloth or similar, both good and bad players bitch and moan like sissies. I've seen it plenty of times.

The good players are bigger crybabies than the rest about it.

Why is that?
It's the same table, pockets, balls and cues.

stevelomako said:

When you take a table that's had Simonis on it and then put some Mali rubber backed cloth or similar, both good and bad players bitch and moan like sissies. I've seen it plenty of times.

The good players are bigger crybabies than the rest about it.

Why is that?
It's the same table, pockets, balls and cues.

Click to expand...

No clue.

But personally, I've played on the old, nappy, slow cloth that made everything so, so hard (boo hoo) and needed an ah so great and wonderful and monsterous stroke to move those big, bad, oh so heavy 6 OUNCE BALLS (oh MY!!) a foot here or three feet there and was fine.

I've also played on cloth so heavy on some Indian Reservations up in Montana that you'd swear it was a moth-eaten wool blanket that had been taken straight from Mother McCree's attic and I've played in the US 1Pocket Open on new Simonis with new Aramiths fresh off the boat from Belgium that made it like playing on ice.

The only thing that really makes a difference is the size of the pockets. Smaller targets make a difference.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa said:

No clue.

But personally, I've played on the old, nappy, slow cloth that made everything so, so hard (boo hoo) and needed an ah so great and wonderful and monsterous stroke to move those big, bad, oh so heavy 6 OUNCE BALLS (oh MY!!) a foot here or three feet there and was fine.

I've also played on cloth so heavy on some Indian Reservations up in Montana that you'd swear it was a moth-eaten wool blanket that had been taken straight from Mother McCree's attic and I've played in the US 1Pocket Open on new Simonis with new Aramiths fresh off the boat from Belgium that made it like playing on ice.

The only thing that really makes a difference is the size of the pockets. Smaller targets make a difference.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

Why would you answer the question if you have no clue???

I'm being serious, good players bitch like sissies about it.

I guarantee if players showed up at this years US Open 9 ball and there was Mali on the tables the majority of them would blow a fuse.

I'm just asking why.

Freddy the Beard joins the conversation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jz9COFxn6c

Freddy the Beard and George Fels have a conversation about the players from the 50's and 60's.

Around the 1:22:30 mark Freddy states "the equipment of today is actually much better, much easier to run balls"

In fairness to Lou who is playing in the match he definitely would have benefitted if the pockets were 6" or 7". If you care to watch the match you will see what I am talking about.

Wayne

I would like to hear Billy I's take on the equipment controversy

The biggest difference between pool then and now is probably the rise in global play. Back during the JC era there was only one foreigner that I know of that tried to compete, without much success. These days it seems like most major tournaments are essentially dominated by foreign players -- the exceptions being a handful of elite American players.

The exception maybe being bar table events, which seem to still get strong American finishes? Now talk about improvements to the equipment -- with bar tables then and now the difference is even greater than in 9' equipment! I think part of the rise in bar table tournaments today has got to be because that equipment has improved so much it legitimizes it for tournaments.

stevelomako said:

Why would you answer the question if you have no clue???

I'm being serious, good players bitch like sissies about it.

I guarantee if players showed up at this years US Open 9 ball and there was Mali on the tables the majority of them would blow a fuse.

I'm just asking why.

Click to expand...

I remember the first time I encountered Simonis cloth on a bar box. I was at the Atlanta Open about 1987 or so. Bucky Bell and I had driven down there together and it was quite a jamboree. Almost anybody you ever heard of was there. It was a bar box tournament and the tables were covered with Simonis and they used the red Cyclops cue ball for the tournament matches but you had to use the bar box cue ball for practice because you had to use quarters to practice. Something between the cloth and the cue ball and the monster players had me fatally sharked. I never got to where I could fade all that. The better players adapted naturally.

stevelomako said:

Why would you answer the question if you have no clue???

I'm being serious, good players bitch like sissies about it.

I guarantee if players showed up at this years US Open 9 ball and there was Mali on the tables the majority of them would blow a fuse.

I'm just asking why.

Click to expand...

I didn't try and answer your question. I just used your post to share my personal experience on the subject of different cloths.

Lou Figueroa

NH Steve said:

The biggest difference between pool then and now is probably the rise in global play. Back during the JC era there was only one foreigner that I know of that tried to compete, without much success. These days it seems like most major tournaments are essentially dominated by foreign players -- the exceptions being a handful of elite American players.

The exception maybe being bar table events, which seem to still get strong American finishes? Now talk about improvements to the equipment -- with bar tables then and now the difference is even greater than in 9' equipment! I think part of the rise in bar table tournaments today has got to be because that equipment has improved so much it legitimizes it for tournaments.

Click to expand...

Who knows. The way CSI is going the next US Open 1Pocket tournament may be on bar tables.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa said:

Who knows. The way CSI is going the next US Open 1Pocket tournament may be on bar tables.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

Sadly Lou, I am afraid that you might be a bit optimistic in suggesting that there would ever be another U.S. Open One Pocket tournament whether on a 7footer or 9 footer. I hope I am wrong, but I think competitive one pocket is moving off of tournament tables and into poolrooms...for eternity. At least until people stop playing it all together. I hate being such a "doomsday prepper", but I am afraid we are in the "end times" of one pocket.

kollegedave

kollegedave said:

Sadly Lou, I am afraid that you might be a bit optimistic in suggesting that there would ever be another U.S. Open One Pocket tournament whether on a 7footer or 9 footer. I hope I am wrong, but I think competitive one pocket is moving off of tournament tables and into poolrooms...for eternity. At least until people stop playing it all together. I hate being such a "doomsday prepper", but I am afraid we are in the "end times" of one pocket.

kollegedave

Click to expand...

My concern has to do with the fact that a 1P tournament is not a revenue-producer like bar table 9-ball.

I look at the equipment today vs. yesteryear as a separate issue as to are the players today better than the players of yesteryear. Related, but separate. Why? Because we can look at equipment without looking at the players. I know the way I played in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and so on, and how I play today. I don't have to compare Efren against Mosconi to look at the equipment. Compound that because we all know that, simply, Mosconi played within the confines of the equipment back then and Efren with that of today.

OK, that said, I think the equipment today is "easier" than that of yesteryear. I think if you spoke with most experts, who have had exposure to both, and you limited the discussion strictly to equipment -- I think that an overwhelming majority will say easier and today. Pockets? Of course, that variable is a given -- the pockets today are smaller and for the most part are "tighter" than yesteryear. But again, forget about the player. A great player is a great player and a great player will adapt to the pocket and stroke accordingly. How long on a table before you know how tight that pocket is and how much you can and can't cheat the pocket. Personally, I think it's easier to "move" balls today.

As far as the players -- look, it's the age old argument. Could Mosconi in his prime beat Efren in his prime? What game? LOL. I think there is some credence in the concept that, if on a given day or two, Efren in his prime went back in the time machine and played Mosconi in his prime -- Mosconi wins. In addition, if Mosconi in his prime, stepped into the time machine going into the future and playing Efren in his prime on a given day or two...I say that, and it somewhat pains me to say it (because I was a big Mosconi fan), that Efren wins. Now, take that argument and say each stayed for a year or so...now that would be a truly epic battle...because both were truly great players. They were masters of their craft, skill personified. And, each would adapt, learn, get better, and acclimate to the day and time.

Just my humble opinion.

kollegedave said:

Sadly Lou, I am afraid that you might be a bit optimistic in suggesting that there would ever be another U.S. Open One Pocket tournament whether on a 7footer or 9 footer. I hope I am wrong, but I think competitive one pocket is moving off of tournament tables and into poolrooms...for eternity. At least until people stop playing it all together. I hate being such a "doomsday prepper", but I am afraid we are in the "end times" of one pocket.

kollegedave

Click to expand...

Dave, I think that eventually it'll land at some pool hall just like used to be held at the Billiard Playground up in Kalamazoo.

Lou Figueroa