The difference in equipment, then and now

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
In another thread there was some conversation about the relative difficulty of pool on today's equipment versus the equipment of the past. I thought it was an interesting topic and deserved its own thread.

1. Pocket size: In the past the pocket standard was bigger. Today the pro standard is smaller. Of course, both in the past and now, there are plenty of variations.

2. Cloth: In the past, slower napped cloth was the standard. Today, Simonis 860 or the like cloth is standard, which was specifically engineered for ideal pool playing conditions.

3. The balls: In the past they were a different plastic composition (often referred to as "clay"), today they are a high grade of phenolic resin and expectations of exact consistency is demanded. See for example the controversy about Cyclop balls when they were introduced a couple years ago.

4. The cues: There were tremendous cue makers in the past that set a very high standard that many players still feel is the ideal tool for pool today. But today you also have low-deflection shaft technology that is engineered to reduce some of the variables inherent in cuing with side english, along with various advances in cue joinery that are touted to improve the hit. Many of today's players rely on their modern cues and shafts.

5. Tips: Tips in the past were solid leather, with natural variations and an assortment of special treatments to get different degrees of hardness. Today we have layered tips in various increments of degree of hardness that can be measured scientifically, so that every player can fairly consistently have exactly the tip playability that they want.

6. Chalk: Standard chalk was the norm back then. Today you can buy a variety of special chalks with different degrees of chalk texture and stickiness. Many players today supply and guard their own personal chalk choice when they shoot.

There might be other differences too -- like lighting for example, that have changed.

As I see it, most of the above changes definitely favor the conditions today. The one exception is pocket size. I know for me, I prefer today's conditions -- especially when the cloth is new and seems to swallow up slightly missed balls rather nicely. :D:D

Three cushion billiards is of course a whole nother animal, but in that discipline especially, it is pretty widely acknowledged that the modern equipment has contributed a lot to the much higher averages in competition today vs the past. I think they reference the heated tables, the super fast and consistent cloth and also the quality of the balls.

In all cue games, but I would say especially the high learning curve games, the growth and dissemination of knowledge hugely favors the modern game. That would apply to One Pocket and three cushion especially in my opinion.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
I agree, it's easier today.
In the 70's I was watching Red and Ronnie play, an old time hustler and road partner of titanic "farmer Brown" said to me "boy how these new balls and cloth have changed the game, we used to get one ball or two and go back to the dugout."
He went on to say how the balls spread and the players went for the runout. Earlier the CB would just bury in the stack, and if not careful you'd trap yourself.
Rod
P.S. I've seen what we called clay balls break in half.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
3,317
From
Houston, Texas
I agree, it's easier today.
In the 70's I was watching Red and Ronnie play, an old time hustler and road partner of titanic "farmer Brown" said to me "boy how these new balls and cloth have changed the game, we used to get one ball or two and go back to the dugout."
He went on to say how the balls spread and the players went for the runout. Earlier the CB would just bury in the stack, and if not careful you'd trap yourself.
Rod
P.S. I've seen what we called clay balls break in half.

Yep, me too, seen a chunk come out of one. If you remember Rod, lots of the balls we played with on the road were really in poor shape, cracked and chipped was fairly normal to find in lots of those old rooms we played.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
It was usually the one ball that broke because it was the head ball in 9 ball.

Remember the "break ball"?

I watched a video of Shane today. Never watched him play before.
Anyone think he could run 9 balls with his style of play on a slow table with unpredictable balls? I don't.

Bill S.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
It was usually the one ball that broke because it was the head ball in 9 ball.

Remember the "break ball"?

I watched a video of Shane today. Never watched him play before.
Anyone think he could run 9 balls with his style of play on a slow table with unpredictable balls? I don't.

Bill S.

Pretty strong statement, you're starting t5o sound like a fella named Lou.:rolleyes:

Dr. Bill
 

keoneyo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
2,883
Pretty strong statement, you're starting t5o sound like a fella named Lou.:rolleyes:

Dr. Bill

The only difference is Mr Stroud started off by proposing a question and his opinion. Not the self righteous word from up on high then being caught in a contradiction with the only way out is to proclaim "I was stating my own opinion".

Besides Mr Stroud has the credentials and the experience to be a little more representative of the times and the truth.

BTW I don't agree with him. After watching Shane on a 10 footer I think he can run out from anywhere. But who am I?
 

Fast Lenny

Verified Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
2,257
From
Arizona & OCNY
I have played on nap cloth, it requires you to stroke balls in more often to move the ball around. As for the clay balls I never have used those but trust that they were not of the same tolerances as today. I think the players from the past would like the equipment today and get used to it, but for players of today to give up the stuff now and play with the old equipment you can only imagine the whining and Facebook post. :lol
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
5,717
From
Placerville, CA
I agree, it's easier today.
In the 70's I was watching Red and Ronnie play, an old time hustler and road partner of titanic "farmer Brown" said to me "boy how these new balls and cloth have changed the game, we used to get one ball or two and go back to the dugout."
He went on to say how the balls spread and the players went for the runout. Earlier the CB would just bury in the stack, and if not careful you'd trap yourself.
Rod
P.S. I've seen what we called clay balls break in half.

The guy with the biggest break around Los Angeles in the late 50's/ early 60's was Jack Perkins. I was sweating a match at Hollywood and Western when he broke the one ball in half.

He could play a little one pocket too.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
The only difference is Mr Stroud started off by proposing a question and his opinion. Not the self righteous word from up on high then being caught in a contradiction with the only way out is to proclaim "I was stating my own opinion".

Besides Mr Stroud has the credentials and the experience to be a little more representative of the times and the truth.

BTW I don't agree with him. After watching Shane on a 10 footer I think he can run out from anywhere. But who am I?

Actually I was just kidding and taking a page out of Lou's' playbook.

I really think Shane would do fine but he would need to change his game a lot from what I saw. No rolling balls to the pockets. No simple position. Lots of 1 and 2 rail position. Crisp everything to keep it from rolling off. Have to make spot shots and play push out.

One thing he wouldn't have to worry about is Skids. Clay balls just didn't do that.

Bill S.
 
Last edited:

Triple Smart

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
77
I would not want to go back to playing on shag carpet again either. I had not even thought about it til i saw this thread. We are too spoiled on 860 simonis cloth now....and you dont even have to comb it 😏
 

Wayne

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
444
Pretty strong statement, you're starting t5o sound like a fella named Lou.:rolleyes:

Dr. Bill

Now you have gone and done it. Prepare for the Lou explosion. By the time he is done with you, you will be known as a lock artist and nut hugger.:lol:heh
Wayne
 

Wayne

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
444
I played in a tournament once with a nap cloth and I felt like I was in quicksand. I think the cloth and the balls of today heavily favor the player over this equipment from the past. Everything else chalk, cues, shafts etc I could deal with either way. I much prefer the small pockets over big pockets. I think 4 1/2" pockets, that a lot of straight pool is played on, are enormous and make running a hundred balls a much easier task than the 4" to 4 1/4" that are prevalent where I play.

Wayne
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
In dry climes, like SoCal, Nev. and Ariz., 4-1/4" pockets are probably very tolerable. In humid areas like SE Tex. and the Deep South, 4-1/4" pockets would be semi-agony. As it is, 4-1/2" pockets play much smaller down here.

Add to that the deep shelves on Diamond tables, the balls are harder to pocket. But on GCs in a dry climate, you just have to roll the ball at the vicinity of the pocket, and it gets sucked in, doesn't it?:D

~Doc
 

kollegedave

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
169
From
St. Louis, MO
It was usually the one ball that broke because it was the head ball in 9 ball.

Remember the "break ball"?

I watched a video of Shane today. Never watched him play before.
Anyone think he could run 9 balls with his style of play on a slow table with unpredictable balls? I don't.

Bill S.

Shane (like most pro-level players) has spent years developing his pool playing ability in world of Simonis and high-grade phenolic resin. Accordingly, he has developed a game that finds success under these conditions.

If Shane were to have played back in the times of horses and carriages or cave painting, he would have developed skill to accommodate those conditions.

His physical and mental ability are elite. It would elite then as well.

kollegedave
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
Shane (like most pro-level players) has spent years developing his pool playing ability in world of Simonis and high-grade phenolic resin. Accordingly, he has developed a game that finds success under these conditions.

If Shane were to have played back in the times of horses and carriages or cave painting, he would have developed skill to accommodate those conditions.

His physical and mental ability are elite. It would be elite then as well.

kollegedave

Absolutely, no doubt about it.
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,950
Back in the days we played entirely on felt, you could find that many players had a Slip Stroke. Cole Dickson comes to mind along with Willie Mosconi. I think clay balls also contributed along with cues that weighed frequently in the 20oz range to moving the ball around the table. We did play with bigger pockets as the game was tougher due to the balls and cloth. Lastly, there were still a lot of old rooms around the country who had not converted to the Gold Crowns and those old tables and rubber were beat up pretty bad. Could you imagine playing in those conditions and then maybe playing in an area of the country where the humidity was so high that everything just stuck together, including your undershorts?
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
I played a lot in The South in the summers when most rooms didn't have AC.
If the room did I was usually playing the owner and he would turn it off.
They knew how to treat their guests.

You did what you had to do to play in the existing conditions.

The cloth in some rooms was so bad it was hanging off the rails leaving the rubber exposed. You still had to run out to win.

Jerry M is correct. Many players used slip strokes to get around the table.

In Houston TJ Parker has a table that played so short in the high humidity that a 3 rail for your pocket could also be played as a 5 rail to the same pocket.

I played in a lot of Black rooms in those days. The cloth was always bad. On some tables you had to play from hole in the felt to the next hole for position.

You still had to run out to win.

The best shot I ever made was in Sanford NC playing James Dowdey for 200 dollars per game 9 ball. The 8 and 9 were on the end rail a diamond from the pockets. The cue ball was about 1 1/2 inch off the rail between them. James had dogged the 7 ball and had left it between the spot and the second diamond. I was straight in. I jacked up and drew the cue ball back to the end rail between the 8 and 9.

Needless to say, it was the last game.

So when someone tells me that conditions are harder now, I just have to laugh.

Bill S.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
The difference in equipment, then and now

In dry climes, like SoCal, Nev. and Ariz., 4-1/4" pockets are probably very tolerable. In humid areas like SE Tex. and the Deep South, 4-1/4" pockets would be semi-agony. As it is, 4-1/2" pockets play much smaller down here.



Add to that the deep shelves on Diamond tables, the balls are harder to pocket. But on GCs in a dry climate, you just have to roll the ball at the vicinity of the pocket, and it gets sucked in, doesn't it?:D



~Doc


On new cloth yes, balls absolutely get sucked in :D On old cloth, not so much.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,493
I played a lot in The South in the summers when most rooms didn't have AC.
If the room did I was usually playing the owner and he would turn it off.
They knew how to treat their guests.

You did what you had to do to play in the existing conditions.

The cloth in some rooms was so bad it was hanging off the rails leaving the rubber exposed. You still had to run out to win.

Jerry M is correct. Many players used slip strokes to get around the table.

In Houston TJ Parker has a table that played so short in the high humidity that a 3 rail for your pocket could also be played as a 5 rail to the same pocket.

I played in a lot of Black rooms in those days. The cloth was always bad. On some tables you had to play from hole in the felt to the next hole for position.

You still had to run out to win.

The best shot I ever made was in Sanford NC playing James Dowdey for 200 dollars per game 9 ball. The 8 and 9 were on the end rail a diamond from the pockets. The cue ball was about 1 1/2 inch off the rail between them. James had dogged the 7 ball and had left it between the spot and the second diamond. I was straight in. I jacked up and drew the cue ball back to the end rail between the 8 and 9.

Needless to say, it was the last game.

So when someone tells me that conditions are harder now, I just have to laugh.

Bill S.


Most of the conditions you describe still exist today. It's a sad state of affairs but it's relatively tough to find quality rooms with quality equipment and conditions.

One nice thing about the heavier cloth and older balls is that's moving the CB is more predictable. Some years at the U.S. Open 1Pocket it was like playing on an air hockey table.

So having said all that I'd say that today's professional level equipment is tougher. Way tougher.

Lou Figueroa
can I laugh now
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Lou,

You're dreaming.

Smaller pocket do not equal tougher conditions.

Especially when you can move the cue ball without a stroke.

Wake up!

Bill S.
 
Top