What Makes A Legend?

I'd say that legends are made by the same things in all sports:

1. Playing their sport better than anybody else in their era.

2. Doing things in their sport that nobody had ever seen before.

3. Playing great under pressure.

4. Playing the best when behind and all is riding on it.

5. Playing at a high level for a long time. 10-20 years in most sports would be a starting point. Less than 10 years means he didn't do it long enough.

Does anybody else have anything to add? For poolplayers I would add betting your own cash and playing as well or better than if you were being staked. As far as I'm concerned, if a man can't or doesn't bet his own and play well, then he's not even a poolplayer to me. If his speed goes down when he bets his own cash, it certainly detracts from his legacy.

Dennis

Cowboy Dennis said:

I'd say that legends are made by the same things in all sports:

1. Playing their sport better than anybody else in their era.

2. Doing things in their sport that nobody had ever seen before.

3. Playing great under pressure.

4. Playing the best when behind and all is riding on it.

5. Playing at a high level for a long time. 10-20 years in most sports would be a starting point. Less than 10 years means he didn't do it long enough.

Does anybody else have anything to add? For poolplayers I would add betting your own cash and playing as well or better than if you were being staked. As far as I'm concerned, if a man can't or doesn't bet his own and play well, then he's not even a poolplayer to me. If his speed goes down when he bets his own cash, it certainly detracts from his legacy.

Dennis

Click to expand...

Totally agree with all 5 points...I would just add a 6th point...I think a man should always be able to go back to wherever he's been...Not saying he needs to win a popularity contest, but I think a few of the best players, (of any era) had some serious character flaws... I don't think that someone, who would "toss their mother" should be held in high esteem, no matter how good they played...At any rate, for me, that will always affect the way I percieve them as true "legends" of the game.

PS..To me, thats far worse than what Canseco, Bond's and Clemen's, (or Rose for that matter) did to baseball. "Dumping" represents a a totally different kind of cheating.

Dennis, I agree as well...and yes, Dick, the personality/character facet surely cannot be ignored. Technically it shouldn't matter, but realistically and because we are all human, it does.

I would add another qualification. Now they don't need to grab some pom-poms and jump up and down, but I think they should have done something positive for their sport. In some way embraced their sport and showed they had some respect for the sport.

Not someone, that everywhere they went, they were badmouthing the sport. Example's in pool, might be someone who every chance they got, they were saying how pool sucks, the people in it sucks, the tourney sucks, it's a stupid game ..... etc.. I don't have a problem if they went public and said you can't make any money at tourneys.... that's the truth, but somewhere along the line, they promoted their sport in some small way.

I think SVB has everything already to be a legend, except the length..... all he has to do now, is put in the time playing as good as he has over the past several years.

Oh... I just thought on one other thing about a legend. I think they will of course have their own game they excel at, but they must play all games at a respectable level and match up at other games.

Oh, one other thing.. they must not be a nit or lock artist. A legend to me, is also someone who will jump up and play anyone, or give spots and outrun them. I don't mean the guy has to be a lunatic but he must be fearless and not afraid to play any man, woman or child. If he lost at a game, he would come back and play it again, because he had heart and confidence and the desire to beat that person. Not a one set and lost guy who ducked from then on.

Cowboy Dennis said:

I'd say that legends are made by the same things in all sports:

1. Playing their sport better than anybody else in their era.

2. Doing things in their sport that nobody had ever seen before.

3. Playing great under pressure.

4. Playing the best when behind and all is riding on it.

5. Playing at a high level for a long time. 10-20 years in most sports would be a starting point. Less than 10 years means he didn't do it long enough.

Does anybody else have anything to add? For poolplayers I would add betting your own cash and playing as well or better than if you were being staked. As far as I'm concerned, if a man can't or doesn't bet his own and play well, then he's not even a poolplayer to me. If his speed goes down when he bets his own cash, it certainly detracts from his legacy.

Dennis

Click to expand...

Dennis i think thats a good list.
what about the "undercover"guys.where do they fit in???or do they??

SJDinPHX said:

Totally agree with all 5 points...I would just add a 6th point...I think a man should always be able to go back to wherever he's been...Not saying he needs to win a popularity contest, but I think a few of the best players, (of any era) had some serious character flaws... I don't think that someone, who would "toss their mother" should be held in high esteem, no matter how good they played...At any rate, for me, that will always affect the way I percieve them as true "legends" of the game.

PS..To me, thats far worse than what Canseco, Bond's and Clemen's, (or Rose for that matter) did to baseball. "Dumping" represents a a totally different kind of cheating.

Click to expand...

Dick on this i agree and disagree. if someones skill was deserving of being a legend and fulfilled all of dennis's 5 points BUT had a serious character flaw
to me he would still be a legend just not one to admire or emulate.
i guess that persons misdeeds would become legendary too or infamous

i guess mosconi would not meet the criteria.
didnt gamble or wanted the nuts and was a creep

Mosconi

Mosconi

lll said:

i guess mosconi would not meet the criteria.
didnt gamble or wanted the nuts and was a creep

Click to expand...

lll, let me clear up something about Mosconi. He was an irritating sort of a guy, and I personally didnt like him, but a common misconception is that he wouldnt gamble. That is true up to a point. The main reason he didnt gamble is because he had a lifetime contract with Brunswick and a provision in his contract forbade him from gambling. He was a front man for many Brunswick products and promotions. Brunswick did not want Willie's image besmirched in any way. Other players in the Brunswick stable were under the same restrictions. Even so, he was woofed into betting 4 or 5 times that I know of, onepocket with Fats and Don DeCoy in Philly. Both of which he robbed. Nineball with Nicky Vachianno in Philly, giving him the 5 and the break on a 5 x 10, whom he also stuck up, and finally, playing my mentor Gene Skinner even onepocket. That one Willie did not do too good in. Playing an all-around of 15 different pool or Billiard Games, Skinner was maybe the best ever. Some of those games included, 3 cush, Red ball 3 cush, 1 rail caroms, 2 rail caroms, one ball in the side, Alabama 8 ball, rotation, 5 x 10 snooker, etc. I also heard vague reports about Willie playing Jimmy Moore either Nine ball or straight pool. Dont know any details except Moore didnt win.

Beard

..such a nice fellow, Dennis

..such a nice fellow, Dennis

Thank you Dennis, you are very kind.

Beard

#6 aside, of course

Looking at the three basic categories for our own hall of fame, I'd like to expand on the third:

3. Teachers and Promoters who have had a lasting impact on the growth and popularity of the game.​

To me, this also definitely includes "players" that by their extra-special entertainment qualities (combined with their pool talent and the other qualities you all mention earlier), they drew people to the game -- to watch, to give it a try themselves, or to invest in the game, etc., etc. Ronnie Allen, Keith McCready, Louie Roberts & Fats immediately jump to mind as classic examples. In my opinion, players like this are a huge reason why pool in general -- and the action side of pool in particular -- have more or less thrived over the years in parallel to the degree of exposure these entertaining characters of the game have received.

SJDinPHX said:

Totally agree with all 5 points...I would just add a 6th point...I think a man should always be able to go back to wherever he's been...Not saying he needs to win a popularity contest, but I think a few of the best players, (of any era) had some serious character flaws... I don't think that someone, who would "toss their mother" should be held in high esteem, no matter how good they played...At any rate, for me, that will always affect the way I percieve them as true "legends" of the game.

PS..To me, thats far worse than what Canseco, Bond's and Clemen's, (or Rose for that matter) did to baseball. "Dumping" represents a a totally different kind of cheating.

Click to expand...

Dick,

Your number 6 is not very comparable to other sports. Ty Cobb is a legend on par with the best but he was a mean-spirited, racist jerk that fought with teammates and the general public alike. Near the end he said that he wished he had more friends. I'll bet Babe Ruth never had to think that.

Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan never stood for anything or voiced views in public that could possibly prevent them from making more money. To me those are character flaws. Maybe not on par with some but important nonetheless. Tiger's flaws have been shown recently, he is a liar and a man of poor character. Michael Jordan retired the first time to avoid being the target of a gambling scandal, if memory serves.

Love him or hate him, Muhammad Ali stood by his beliefs at tremendous costs to himself. I respect what he did even as many hate him for his views. He had the character to stand up for what he thought was right. If people like Ali didn't make the sacrifices they did, we might still be in Vietnam instead of my new Rockport shoes having been made there . He gave up 3 years in his prime for what he believed was right. I can't think of another athlete today that has even voiced opinions much less backed them up.

The baseball players who used drugs to gain an advantage cheated at their sport. It's that simple. They cheated and then lied to cover it up, compounding the crime, as it were.

Pete Rose did the one big no-no in baseball. He bet on his team and also did it when he managed them. He is a man of extremely low character. He also lied for a long time before finally telling the truth, and then he only did it(told the truth) so he might have a chance at being returned to the fold. But some love him and want him in the HOF.

All in all, I'd say that character is important but it seems that we overlook flaws when the guy plays for our team. Those very same flaws are sometimes responsible for the player playing great. McEnroe's serious(personality) flaws on a tennis court probably helped make him one of the best ever, unfortunately. Bjorn Borg never said a word to an umpire(or a cameraman) and played just as good, on grass anyway .

For poolplayers it seems the best ones have serious character flaws, or they wouldn't be poolplayers. That's not hard to figure out. Because there is no money in pool, players have at times resorted to business to get by. That's a shame all around. It's also never right. Cheating is cheating.

Character flaws always seem to ooze out in other ways, but they do always show through in the end. To me, having character is more important than winning. I can still feel good if I lose but showed character in doing so.

Dennis

lll said:

Dennis i think thats a good list.
what about the "undercover"guys.where do they fit in???or do they??

Click to expand...

They wanted to be undercover and out of the spotlight, let them stay there. It was their choice.

Dennis

lll said:

he would still be a legend just not one to admire or emulate.

Click to expand...

Excellent point Larry.

Cowboy Dennis said:

Dick, Your number 6 is not very comparable to other sports. Ty Cobb is a legend on par with the best but he was a mean-spirited, racist jerk that fought with teammates and the general public alike. Near the end he said that he wished he had more friends. I'll bet Babe Ruth never had to think that.

Click to expand...

You overlooked the fact that I said, they did not have to win a popularity contest to qualify as a Legend.

Muhammad Ali stood by his beliefs at tremendous costs to himself... He gave up 3 years in his prime for what he believed was right. I can't think of another athlete today that has even voiced opinions much less backed them up.

Click to expand...

Granted, nowhere near as many as there were during WW ll...but you are forgetting Pat Tillman.

The baseball players who used drugs to gain an advantage cheated at their sport. It's that simple. They cheated and then lied to cover it up, compounding the crime, as it were.

Click to expand...

Dispicible, I agree...But still nowhere near what the players involved in the White Sox scandal of 1919 did.(hmm, Chicago)...That is exactly what a pool player does when he dumps,... pukes on his friends and believers.
There will always be Barry Bonds, Johnny Mac's. Mike Tyson's, and Ty Cobbs...the world is not lily white...But, their actions do not (at least in my eyes) remotely approach the level of a Detroit Whitey. (except maybe for that asshole Michael Vick)

Character flaws always seem to ooze out in other ways, but they do always show through in the end.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said ?

Edit to say...Drug scandals in sports, are a sign of our recent culture...Drugs have been around in sports forever. (and everybody lies about it...)

How about this? Several generations have passed since your death and all that remains are strories of your grand exploits, handed down over time because they inspire and instruct.

I rather think the days of legendary people and actions passed with the invention of real-time recording devices. Meaning: nobody who has ever been recorded doing anything can ever be a "legend".

Skin

SJDinPHX said:

Granted, nowhere near as many as there were during WW ll...but you are forgetting Pat Tillman.

Click to expand...

I did forget him and it's my mistake. I think I forgot him because he didn't make a big deal out of it. He was a true man in every sense of the word.

Dennis

Skin said:

How about this? Several generations have passed since your death and all that remains are strories of your grand exploits, handed down over time because they inspire and instruct.

I rather think the days of legendary people and actions passed with the invention of real-time recording devices. Meaning: nobody who has ever been recorded doing anything can ever be a "legend".

Skin

Click to expand...

Skin,

Those are good points. Stories through the years tend to eliminate the bad and focus on the good. With video proof, that goes out the window.

Dennis

Cowboy Dennis said:

Character flaws always seem to ooze out in other ways, but they do always show through in the end.
Dennis

Click to expand...

As hard as it is I won't name names. They're a couple of legends who are miserable
Dumping so-n-so's. One did it constantly (not a one-pocket player) and is clearly consider one of the best ever.
The other did it occasionly and is considered a legend. I'm still waiting for the "ooze".
Rod.

Without getting too far into this, I would like to point out that not everyone will recognize the same legends. A hero to one group might well be recalled as just another a--hole to others. On the other hand, Detroit Whitey seems to be a legend of sorts. I think only one or two here have claimed to like him, and no one has claimed he was a great player, but he is legendary, nonetheless. Was Al Capone legendary? John Dillinger? Pick your own legends. They don't have to match mine.

Could he play?

Could he play?

vapros said:

Without getting too far into this, I would like to point out that not everyone will recognize the same legends. A hero to one group might well be recalled as just another a--hole to others. On the other hand, Detroit Whitey seems to be a legend of sorts. I think only one or two here have claimed to like him, and no one has claimed he was a great player, but he is legendary, nonetheless. Was Al Capone legendary? John Dillinger? Pick your own legends. They don't have to match mine.

Click to expand...

As far as Whitey's playing ability, in the Ring 10 ball game in Johnston City one year, Whitey ran 9 racks against the best in the world. On the 10th game he jumped the table with the cue ball while breaking the balls. He paid off that game and quit. When he was trying to win he actually played pretty good. A--hole was one of the nicer things said about him.

Beard

The proper term for him and others is, eggregious. Outstandingly bad. However, if we insert a character clause, and then add that they had to have bet their own money, who the hell is going to be left?