Walking with giants, lassiter

Ross Keith Thompson

Verified Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
168
From
madisonville, texas
I know I have included Luther "WIMPY" Lassiter in my many posts but I haven't done a sole post on him and I apologize for not starting with him in the beginning for he was maybe the most dominating player the world has ever known.

Earned the name WIMPY for his love of cheeseburgers, lol. Hell I still love cheeseburgers myself, lol.

He won four all around titles at Johnston City and also won titles in each division, talk about showing he belonged, I believe that qualifies.

I played him in the All around in 1970 Johnston City and what a pleasure it was to play this gentleman on the worlds biggest stage.

I guess his plan was to run 125 and out against all his opponents in 14 and 1 and he actually did in quite a few matches.

His plan was to run eleven and out in all his nine ball matches in a race to eleven, though he never did I believe.

My plan against him in our matches was to do the exact same thing to him, LOL. Didn't happen, LOL, but it wasn't for the lack of trying, haha.

He did only get two chances in our race to eleven, that was all I could give him, lol, and that was it, only way I had a chance, he was that good.

I won the lag for first break and started with a 4 pack, he came back with 3, I came back with 5, he came back with 5, match over, final score 11-8.

Man did I escape death here on the biggest stage, was 1 of my 2 scariest matches, Irving Crane was the other in a race to eleven. I get chills up my spine every time I think about it.

My plan in 14-1 was to run 125 and out, LOL, didn't happen, but I did make to 64 before scratching while busting the stack open, didn't see that coming.

Anywho I lost that match but I did make him worry about an hour while sitting on that stool in the neutral corner.

I showed I belonged in a losing effort but a win against him in 14 and 1 was almost impossible, he dominated almost every match he played at 9 ball and 14 - 1.

He won most of his matches 125 to zero and his 9 ball matches were about the same.

I never got to shoot the sh-t with him during my time at Johnston City and I wish I had, I regret not approaching him and kicking off a good conversation for he was the GIANT in the pool world and in my opinion will always be!

If you people make me pick one player that was the best ever it is WIMPY LASSITER, he couldn't beat Ronnie Allen at One Hole but hell, who could, lol.

Thank you Mr. Lassiter for letting a kid Walk with a Giant, you were the best ever!
 

Ross Keith Thompson

Verified Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
168
From
madisonville, texas
lassiter 1970

lassiter 1970

Yeah Rock, that was the year 1970, Lassiter was virtually unbeatable at nine ball and 14-1 and Ronnie Allen was unbeatable at One Hole.

Ronnie also played very strong nine ball and 14-1, had 100 ball capability and 5 rack plus capability at nine ball.

My game with both opponents would go exactly like I say, I would lose more than I would win against Lassiter at nine ball and 14-1.

He could not win against me at One Hole on his best day, I was better at the game.

My one pocket game was super close to Ronnie's game, I needed 9 to 8 and it would have been close. At 9 to 8 I would bet on Ronnie, but no more. Don't believe he could give me 8 to 7.

He gave Jersey Red 9 to 8 and it was about even, I think my game was at Reds level, ask Tall Jeff, whatever he says is true.

My nine ball game was about equal to Ronnie's in both our prime, we both had 5 rack plus capability in our every day game.

Ronnie and myself had 100 ball capability at 14 and 1, but neither of us gave a shoot about the game, lmao.

When we three played the all around in 1970 it wasn't as big of an upset as it would appear, if I was rested and brought my A game with me I was a full load at all three games.

Any player that won Johnston City or the Stardust tournament in Vegas dam sure didn't do it accidently, that person could flat out play.

The best of the best were there every year, it wasn't a place for pretenders in the land of giants. It does seem awkward that an 18 year old would win an al-around of that magnitude with that group of nasties.

My nine ball game came to fruition in Johnston City, I threw 4 to six packs on every opponent and played smart thru my matches, won the nine ball championship and carried it on thru the all around, funnest and toughest thing I ever did.

It was the biggest relief in my life when it was over, no one will ever know how exhausting it was busting heads with those two giants.

But I did enjoy the competition that day, it was a challenge of a lifetime and I made myself do it. That might have been my only window no matter how many years I played, there was many other giants that had that potential at times.

My answer is too long so I'm sorry but yes I was there with Lassiter and Ronnie Allen and wouldn't have it any other way, they dam sure made me earn it, it was scary to say the least, lol.
 

OneRock

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,433
From
South Florida
Hey Keith, what was the key to consistently running 4/5/6 packs back then, given the slow cloth and the lack of generally better playing equipment? Nowadays, we have better leather tips, break cues, jump cues, low-deflection shafts, and racking/breaking knowledge.
 

Ross Keith Thompson

Verified Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
168
From
madisonville, texas
4-6 pack runs

4-6 pack runs

Hello OneRock" You can't run multiple racks of 9 ball consistently like Tall Jeff or Billie Incardona unless you have a consistent break. Those two were like at the top of the nasty heap.

I patterned my break after Greg Stevens in Houston Texas, he broke from center table and used a tiny bit of high English on his cue ball and parked it near center table more times than not back in the day.

If Greg was near center table it was game over. If you turn your cue ball loose against one of the mid-evil niners it may be six or eight games before you shoot again.

The key to running multiple racks is a good break with out scratching EVER!

Practice this break at center table and park it, your cue ball should never touch the rail.

OH and happy holidays to everyone, should've started with that one, lol.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
I don't know if they played "roll out" or "push out" rules in the 9-ball matches at the Johnston City (or Stardust) events. I know we were playing roll out 9-ball rules in L.A. in the late '60s.

If so, the older rules encouraged shot making, not safety play. There was no ball in hand. A scratch or foul penalty was played CB in the Kitchen, so there were spot shots and other shots that could be passed up today in favor of a safety. If a guy was offered a push out shot, he most often took the shot. So players were more accustomed to taking difficult shots, thereby making more run-outs.

Pockets were generally slightly larger. I don't recall seeing many 4-1/2" pockets until the '90s. Although I'm sure they were in use before then, I don't believe they were commonplace in the '60s or '70s in most areas. Bigger pockets equals more run outs.

Generally the cloths and rails tended to be slower in the older days. That encouraged player to develop more powerful strokes. Many players are more likely to run more balls when they can let out their strokes a little.

We see fewer 4-5-6 pack runs today, and it's presumably due to the rules and tougher equipment.

~Doc
 

OneRock

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,433
From
South Florida
I'm in total agreement, Doc.

I don't know if they played "roll out" or "push out" rules in the 9-ball matches at the Johnston City (or Stardust) events. I know we were playing roll out 9-ball rules in L.A. in the late '60s.

If so, the older rules encouraged shot making, not safety play. There was no ball in hand. A scratch or foul penalty was played CB in the Kitchen, so there were spot shots and other shots that could be passed up today in favor of a safety. If a guy was offered a push out shot, he most often took the shot. So players were more accustomed to taking difficult shots, thereby making more run-outs.

Pockets were generally slightly larger. I don't recall seeing many 4-1/2" pockets until the '90s. Although I'm sure they were in use before then, I don't believe they were commonplace in the '60s or '70s in most areas. Bigger pockets equals more run outs.

Generally the cloths and rails tended to be slower in the older days. That encouraged player to develop more powerful strokes. Many players are more likely to run more balls when they can let out their strokes a little.

We see fewer 4-5-6 pack runs today, and it's presumably due to the rules and tougher equipment.

~Doc
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
yes and without push out more players try to hook you instead of running out a tough layout. with pushout if are hooked you just roll out to a tough shot that you know and he may not or to another safety play.

that is why eddie taylor was the toughest 9 ball player ever at shoot out ( or push out as some called it), as he pushed out to a bank no one but him could make and if you shot you missed most times, and if you let him shoot he made it and played position and ran out.

shoot out was mostly played where if you shot out and then if either player scratched on the next shot it was ball in hand anywhere on the table.

there may have been a benefit to shooters of tough shots with it but playing shoot out the smarter player had a bigger advantage than present rules.

so i believe that present rules favor the ball pocket-er rather than the smarter player or better overall shooter that shoots tough shots well.
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Keith's response was very polite, considering it was mention that era had inferior equipment, and it was easier to run racks. How wrong those statements are!

The GC's of the late 60's and early 70's played tough for the cushion were very responsive. No soft pockets here, you could not catch the rail before the pocket, especially in 9 ball for the balls are struck harder. The cues good players used were made by HOFer's. The tip we used was a Chantiverde French tip, and there is no better tip ever made. It would last 6 months when playing everyday. I never scuffed it, shaped it, or anything, just chalked it, for miscues never happened. We only used one cue to play with, and we broke with it too, for you could break better with your shooter. The exactness of the break as Keith pointed out required you use your shooter.

Running racks was very hard in those days for the opponent always racked for you with a conventional triangle rack. When you have broke 10's of 1000's of 9-ball racks you can inspect a rack and if a ball is loose such as the corner ball or the ball behind the head ball then you can make that ball everytime. Top 9-ballers know this.

But I sweated hundreds of games of 9-ball at the Bellflower, ca. Palace where only players played, and I never seen over two racks run. I mean no body, I do care what player it was, and there is a list of great players I could mention.

Keith had a break out moment that can happen to those that truly have greatness in side them. It was unprecedented to have that many packs of runs not only in a match but also throughout the whole tournament. That can not be dimensioned in any way. And the great players he played such as Crane and Lassiter were matching him pack for pack, wow I just can put words to this to put in proper perspective of just how magnificent these matches were. I only hope that some of my insight will enlighten those that think otherwise.

You guys should listen to him for he is educated you. He stated; " you have to be able to break, and never scratch and never let the cue ball contact a rail". That is how you put racks together. There is no truer statement!

Pro's today could not match what he did, for I have watched their matches when the opponent racks for them using a triangle rack, they would be lucky to run over one rack, and I am not kidding. And even with a magic rack they often scratch. When Keith says; "Never" I for one take him at his word, and totally agree; "you never scratch". Whitey
 
Last edited:

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,322
From
Detroit, MI
Keith's response was very polite, considering it was mention that era had inferior equipment, and it was easier to run racks. How wrong those statements are!

The GC's of the late 60's and early 70's played tough for the cushion were very responsive. No soft pockets here, you could not catch the rail before the pocket, especially in 9 ball for the balls are struck harder. The cues good players used were made by HOFer's. The tip we used was a Chativerde French tip, and there is no better tip ever made. It would last 6 months when playing everyday. I never scuffed it, shaped it, or anything, just chalked it, for miscues never happened. We only used one cue to play with, and we broke with it too, for you could break better with your shooter. The exactness of the break as Keith pointed out required you use your shooter.

Running racks was very hard in those days for the opponent always racked for you with a conventional triangle rack. When you have broke 10's of 1000's of 9-ball racks you can inspect a rack and if a ball is loose such as the corner ball or the ball behind the head ball then you can make that ball everytime. Top 9-ballers know this.

But I sweated hundreds of games of 9-ball at the Bellflower, ca. Palace where only players played, and I never seen over two racks run. I mean no body, I do care what player it was, and there is a list of great players I could mention.

Keith had a break out moment that can happen to those that truly have greatness in side them. It was unprecedented to have that many packs of runs not only in a match but also throughout the whole tournament. That can not be dimensioned in any way. And the great players he played such as Crane and Lassiter were matching him pack for pack, wow I just can put words to this to put in proper perspective of just how magnificent these matches were. I only hope that some of my insight will enlighten those that think otherwise.

You guys should listen to him for he is educated you. He stated; " you have to be able to break, and never scratch and never let the cue ball contact a rail". That is how you put racks together. There is no truer statement!

Pro's today could not match what he did, for I have watched their matches when the opponent racks for them using a triangle rack, they be luck to run over one rack, and I am not kidding. And even with a magic rack they often scratch. When Keith says; "Never" I for one take him at his word, and totally agree; "you never scratch". Whitey

This reply would mean you would most likely bet against anyone playing "the ghost".

You'd lose all your worldly possessions doing that. There's more than one person that can string racks together.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
This reply would mean you would most likely bet against anyone playing "the ghost".

You'd lose all your worldly possessions doing that. There's more than one person that can string racks together.

What's your point, I do not know Ghost's game. And of course more than one person can string racks together, I never implied that, but quite the opposite for I stated; " Crane and Lassiter match him pack for pack! But for a whole tournament that just does not happen everyday. And when it does happen were talking about the winner!

Obviously you do not agree with my post, so what's up, can you be specific! And lets keep it in perspective, we are talking 1970, 9-ball tournament, prior to breaking from off the side cushion!

An era where there was absolutely no guarantee you are going to make a ball on the break! Whitey
 

OneRock

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,433
From
South Florida
Whitey,

If they played 9-ball on the same tables that they played 14.1 on back then, the pockets could not have been as tough as you are implying. Maybe not all tables were the same, but I know for a fact that 5-inch pockets were often used in competition. That said, the cloth was quite tougher compared to the Mickey Mouse cloth in use nowadays, requiring players to develop more powerful strokes. So yes, the tables were certainly not inferior, but other equipment certainly was, making playing conditions that much more adverse compared to today's, which makes Keith's achievement that much more significant.

For example, the triangle definitely was compared to today's Delta-13 rack and the Magic Rack. And the same goes for tips; there's no way you will convince me your era's tips were anywhere close in performance and reliability to today's layered tips, not to mention the tips designed specifically for breaking. And I haven't even begun to mention the adhesives used back then compared to today's.

Talking about the cues themselves, today's cues are also significantly better and higher-performing. For example, HOF'er Balabushka never built a single butt from scratch, not to mention all cues from that era were butt-heavy and were never cored. How about shaft technology (low/ultra-low deflection, laminated, carbon fiber) and the various joint options available today (wood to wood, compression, etc)? All of this adds up to superior equipment in the hands of the modern players, making the game that much easier for them compared to the limited technology that was available to players like Keith.

Peter


Keith's response was very polite, considering it was mention that era had inferior equipment, and it was easier to run racks. How wrong those statements are!

The GC's of the late 60's and early 70's played tough for the cushion were very responsive. No soft pockets here, you could not catch the rail before the pocket, especially in 9 ball for the balls are struck harder. The cues good players used were made by HOFer's. The tip we used was a Chantiverde French tip, and there is no better tip ever made. It would last 6 months when playing everyday. I never scuffed it, shaped it, or anything, just chalked it, for miscues never happened. We only used one cue to play with, and we broke with it too, for you could break better with your shooter. The exactness of the break as Keith pointed out required you use your shooter.

Running racks was very hard in those days for the opponent always racked for you with a conventional triangle rack. When you have broke 10's of 1000's of 9-ball racks you can inspect a rack and if a ball is loose such as the corner ball or the ball behind the head ball then you can make that ball everytime. Top 9-ballers know this.

But I sweated hundreds of games of 9-ball at the Bellflower, ca. Palace where only players played, and I never seen over two racks run. I mean no body, I do care what player it was, and there is a list of great players I could mention.

Keith had a break out moment that can happen to those that truly have greatness in side them. It was unprecedented to have that many packs of runs not only in a match but also throughout the whole tournament. That can not be dimensioned in any way. And the great players he played such as Crane and Lassiter were matching him pack for pack, wow I just can put words to this to put in proper perspective of just how magnificent these matches were. I only hope that some of my insight will enlighten those that think otherwise.

You guys should listen to him for he is educated you. He stated; " you have to be able to break, and never scratch and never let the cue ball contact a rail". That is how you put racks together. There is no truer statement!

Pro's today could not match what he did, for I have watched their matches when the opponent racks for them using a triangle rack, they would be lucky to run over one rack, and I am not kidding. And even with a magic rack they often scratch. When Keith says; "Never" I for one take him at his word, and totally agree; "you never scratch". Whitey
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Yes, OneRock I recognized that you making a compliment to Keith, but when you said our equipment was inferior I had to speak up, and others saying it was easier to run racks back then, I have to speak up. I stand by everything I said. I will give you that in recent years there has been improvement in cue ball deflection. But the master cue makers back then knew how to alleviate this to a lesser agree, and if you want me to elaborate this point I will. Their cues were balanced perfectly. Rule of thumb one inch balance point for one inch of cue length.

People have to realize that it is not the pocket size, it is how lively are the cushions. I do not ever remember playing on GC that had buckets for pockets, and do not remember them being shallow either. I do remember that they did not except the ball readily. And they banked really good, and banks was my game. You can not get those cushions today, for those American Rubber Companies are gone.

I have watch plenty of match play on the internet with 4-1/2 pockets and the pockets except the balls readily.

The Chantiverde Tip could withstand breaking, and as Keith pointed out it was all about being able to control the break, and the cue you were more accurate with and familiar with was your shooting cue.

Tad put the French Champion tips on for me and he had a trick, he would put a taper on the tip from base to top, in that way it would keep them from mushrooming. Whitey
 
Last edited:

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
tips and shafts dont make people play better. that is a farce. players ran hundreds of balls with this so called bad equipment. why they play better now or as it seems is that the cloth makes it so fast that a good stroke isnt necessary to get around the table.

old gold crowns spit out balls and were tough except for the very large pocket ones. tougher than the tables of today except for the tiny pocket ones. slow cloth and no air conditioning in pool rooms made for tough play as you had to really hit hard to get around the table to balls.

no racking for yourself. that is a joke. that is the same as having your own pitcher in baseball for the batter. few players made a ball most times on the break as each rack was different and wasnt set up.. except in tournament conditions where things were made to excel then tables played easier.

now in my old age i can run a rack of nine balls much easier than when i played my best using these new tables with standard pockets.

the exception is on old tables that had the 5 1/4 pockets then you could easily play well. but tightening pockets over the years has made fudging the pocket for position a thing of the past especially on slow tables. that takes away part of the game.
 

OneRock

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,433
From
South Florida
Today's tennis rackets and golf clubs are superior compared to those from past decades. In other words, they have bigger 'sweet spots'. The same goes for pool cues.

Today's cues are easier to play with, mainly because they take the guess work out of aiming with left/right English. We all grew up learning to compensate for cue ball squirt, but this generation of players doesn't have to. Couple that with faster cloth and perfectly constructed racks, and the result is easier playing conditions and a less steep learning curve. Compare that to the harsh conditions that the old-timers had to learn and play under.

At this year's 9-Ball U.S. Open, many players were using the black carbon fiber shaft (which is almost like cheating, to quote Tony Robles). Now whether such equipment is to be deemed 'superior' or not is totally subjective. But if we were talking about some sort of weapon that shoots more accurately, I'm sure we'd deem it superior compared to its%2
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I know that one year the Jansco Brothers experimented with tighter pockets, but the tight pockets cut way back on the runs and they only lasted one year -- fans wanted to see more long runs!

Keith also mentioned push-out vs ball-in-hand rules. The Jansco Brothers were also the first tournament directors to use the ball-in-hand anywhere rule, which they first used in 1967!!

Another tidbit that might have made a difference in the finals and other featured matches, was that the two tables in the "pit" with the bleachers had special light canopies over them, and those lights were apparently left on 24 hrs a day during the tournament, in order to maintain uniform playing conditions -- which would be much drier and faster than tables under normal conditions in October in Southern IL. You see that "today" at the DCC on the featured table, because with so many more lights on that table, it plays faster and longer than all the other DCC tables even though they are the same equipment.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
That is interesting about the smaller pockets in '67. I can see how that would throw off the players, rattle the nerves just enough to make a miss. It is hard to re-train from the way you are accustom to making a shot and altering it because of the pocket size. If they were use to it, it would not of made any difference, for now we see for example; players playing well on 5x10's whereas as we see in Earl vs. SVB in their initial challenge match it made a huge difference, especially for SVB.

The video by Doc shows pockets I would say are 5". The standard was 4-7/8" - 5-1/8". But the rails are lively and play well, as I suggested. The balls in the video were all pocketed cleanly except for Lassiter's double bank, for it caught the rail about an inch before the pocket. But the cushions sure reacted properly on that bank. When I was referring to Gold Crown's and how they played, I was referring to Gold Crown 1's, and do not remember any having the larger pocket size, nor a shallow shelf. If you have responsive cushions and a fairly reasonable shelf depth, it will make the pocket play smaller.

I went ahead and viewed several videos of that era but the balls were pocketed cleanly (all great players), so in the videos I viewed one could not draw a conclusion of how soft or hard the pockets played. The pocket shelf are reasonably deep, some shallower, some deeper. In Boston Shorty vs. Lou Butera senior 9-ball the pockets appear fairly deep. Mosconi's training video, the table has very deep pockets, and looks like 4-3/4". I did see one shot by Mosconi vs. Caras rematch that caught the rail pretty good going into the pocket with speed that should not of gone, but there again it was new cloth.

But the pocket size would have very little effect on Keith, for he was one of the straightest shooters in the country. He could pepper balls in on a snooker table like they had eyes, I seen him doing it. He beat my shooting partner who was a very respectable pay pool player, and one hell of a shot maker himself. The pocket size probably relaxed him, for he was truly going up against giants that had 25 years of playing experience on him. Good Job! Whitey
 
Last edited:
Top