PDA

View Full Version : Is pool different than other sports?



xplayer
02-13-2004, 11:00 AM
I ask this because I use to shoot many yrs ago, where ppl use to call me Fats, when I walked in the pool halls, Not knowing who he was back then LOL. Anyways I was wondering if you had to give it up for whatevr reasons, is it a sport that you can go back into and achieve to the top or is it too late like olympic type sports where you do it when your young and fit not in your 40's? Thanx xplayer

UWPoolGod
02-13-2004, 11:14 AM
Obviously there are limits to what we can do when we get older but there are exceptions as well. Two similar champions in their youths could battle until they were 60 but when ones eyes/joints get worse than the others, the other guy would then have an advantage. Pool is a game that people can play until they are very old since there is not a lot of physicality to it. Not walking the golf course, throwing 16 lb bowling balls or running up and down a court. There is a good player I played in Seattle that was probably 75 in tourneys. His stroke/movement had slowed down and could only play bar boxes, but he enjoyed it nonetheless. I'll play it until I die.

Scott Lee
02-13-2004, 11:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote xplayer:</font><hr> Anyways I was wondering if you had to give it up for whatevr reasons, is it a sport that you can go back into and achieve to the top or is it too late like olympic type sports where you do it when your young and fit not in your 40's? Thanx xplayer <hr /></blockquote>

Actually, the truth is, that humans have continued to improve their earlier peak performances well into their 40's, 50's and beyond. There are many cases of athletes bettering their performances in their 20's and 30's...in many different sports, including billiards. Particularly, since billiards requires less physical conditioning (but the same mental conditioning) than many other sports, the potential to continue to improve, even after a 20 yr layoff is not only feasable, but imo, highly likely, with the right kind of attitude, persistence, and instruction. This, of course, would be just as true for women as men.

Scott Lee

Popcorn
02-13-2004, 11:50 AM
I think pool is not unlike playing a muscisal instrument. If you have a background in it, (best started when you were young), and could play at one time. There should be no reason you can't pick it up again. In the same respect, I think it would be very difficult to begin playing the game at an older age and play at some sort of high level from scratch. I have never known anyone who has, just starting at like 40 and done it.

xplayer
02-13-2004, 12:04 PM
Thank You so much you guys, for your replies. because I shot pool yrs ago to where I won a trophy that I packed away and havent shot since. I love the art of the sport and want to get back into to it and now I know I can, in hopes to achieve again. Have a Wonderful day!! cuz you just made mine /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

socrates
02-13-2004, 12:09 PM
It is a sport where age and treachery have an opportunity to overcome all youth and skill.

Cheers

Voodoo Daddy
02-13-2004, 01:34 PM
Its the only sport/game there is you can lose without playing, think about it.

Voodoo~~~would not make a great philosphor

UWPoolGod
02-13-2004, 01:45 PM
Its the only sport/game there is you can lose without playing, think about it. &lt;--- voodoo

My friend says that all the time if I break and run on him. "You didn't beat me..I didn't even play." I always say "You racked em which is part of playing the game."

xplayer
02-13-2004, 05:20 PM
Sorry, but I don't get the joke. Maybe cuz I'm female.Thanx everyone for your replies!

JPB
02-13-2004, 08:05 PM
Pool and billiards can be played at a high level when you are old. I was just watching an Accu-Stats match where Ceulemans at 65 dusted a 28 y/o last summer. I am sure Ceulemans played better as a young man and would play better now w/ 25 y/o eyes. And he missed some relatively easy shots. I have never watched ceulemans before, but what I saw out of an old man was a guy who knew the game backwards and forwards and could get it done. He can compete and beat anybody on a given day. Control over all three balls, but more importantly, control over the game and himself.

I played this old senile guy once in a little local 3C tournament. Back in the day this was a guy you did not jack with. Period. Later on, all he was was a guy who had the right side of every bet. He could take a look at the players and handicap a match dead on. By the time I played him he was an old dude in a raincoat chain smoking generic cigarettes. People made fun of him a little, which they absolutely would not have thought of doning 30 years before. No f'in way. So anyway, I take the lead. I suck, but I make a couple, then run a 3 and miss because I have no clue how to play. I average like a .2 and am beating this guy. So he puts his cigarette down, wipes some drool off his face, has a lucid moment and runs 8 then missses by a hair leaving all the balls stuck on rails 10' apart. Yeah, old bastard could play till he died.

Rod
02-13-2004, 08:31 PM
Has nothing to do with gender and it's not a joke. Literally it is a game you can lose without playing.

Rod

Alfie
02-14-2004, 02:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote xplayer:</font><hr> Sorry, but I don't get the joke. <hr /></blockquote>No joke, for example, your opponent breaks and runs out the set. You didn't take a single shot yet you lost.

02-14-2004, 05:42 PM

Frank_Glenn
02-14-2004, 05:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]


Mika Immonen didn't start until way late, like in his late teens if I heard him correctly. He used to be a runner and gave that up when he experienced billiards. This isn't exactly in the 40s, but I think it is remarkable that he got so good so fast. <hr /></blockquote>

He, like Ralf, spent a lot of time at Jim Rempe's house learning pool from Jim.

houstondan
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote socrates:</font><hr> It is a sport where age and treachery have an opportunity to overcome all youth and skill.

Cheers <hr /></blockquote>

first time i've heard it put that way and i'm rolling around on the floor, getting dust-bunnies in my nose, laughing at that.

perfect, and so true!

dan

#### leonard
02-15-2004, 01:57 PM
Vooodoo Dadddy my ultimate bet to show that 14.1, is harder than golf is to take someone who never played either game before, give them one week of instruction in both games. Golf in the daylight,pool at night, then have them play say Tiger golf and Mike Sigel pool for five days and at the end of the match, it would be Tiger 325 and his opponent 750 and Mike would have 750 and his opponent might have 50 points. The golfer would improve greatly while the poolplayers sitting would improve.####

Voodoo Daddy
02-15-2004, 05:59 PM
TAP. TAP. TAP...great post ####. You never cease to amaze me.

Voodoo~~~looks to #### for real-life answers

JPB
02-15-2004, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> Vooodoo Dadddy my ultimate bet to show that 14.1, is harder than golf is to take someone who never played either game before, give them one week of instruction in both games. Golf in the daylight,pool at night, then have them play say Tiger golf and Mike Sigel pool for five days and at the end of the match, it would be Tiger 325 and his opponent 750 and Mike would have 750 and his opponent might have 50 points. The golfer would improve greatly while the poolplayers sitting would improve.#### <hr /></blockquote>

This test has nothing to do with anything. It shows that because of the nature of the game the bad pool player will get fewer turns than the bad golfer. Neither Sigel or Woods will be challenged. Even assuming 14.1 is harder (both are hard games, but it is still a big assumption to say which is harder) your test doesn't prove it.

If anything, your demonstration shows golf is harder. For Woods to win a US Open, he has to beat 150 world class players. Sigel has to beat several in a double elimination format. And because he can keep them in the chair, the edge Sigel as over a decent pro pool player is bigger. Woods can't keep anybody in the chair of he is playing well. He has to beat them all. Does that prove golf is harder? No. But your comparison doesn't prove anything. It only proves hackers at either sport can't beat the best player.

A test that MIGHT determine which is harder would be to take a couple of thousand people who had never played either game and get them started, seeing how many could learn how to play reasonably well. After a few months, you could cut 90% of them and just see how the top 200 in each group fared. We could then see how many got to the point where they could run 100 at straight pool and how many could become scratch golfers in say 5-7 years of work. Remember scratch golfers are nowhere close to being good enough to play the Tour, whereas those capable of a few 100 ball runs would be closer to being able to compete in a pool tournament, although not at the level of a Sigel who can do that almost routinely.

bluewolf
02-16-2004, 09:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote socrates:</font><hr> It is a sport where age and treachery have an opportunity to overcome all youth and skill.

Cheers <hr /></blockquote>

Not exactly pool, but I remember a karate match between two black belts, one in his fifties, one in his twenties. The young guy had talent, finess and could kick circles around anyone. The older guy won easily. It was experience with perhaps a little of that 'klingon guile' mixed in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Effren often beats much younger players. He has that experience and from what I have seen, he usually does not fold. he seems to have the mental part mastered that many younger guys do not. JMO

Laura

#### leonard
02-16-2004, 12:09 PM
I know 50 local golfers that have broken par. I might know 10 people who have run 100 and 8 of them are dead.####

JPB
02-16-2004, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> I know 50 local golfers that have broken par. I might know 10 people who have run 100 and 8 of them are dead.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Well yeah, there are thousands of people who break par consistently who are so far short of the talent required to play the Tour it isn't funny. Change the numbers to what you like. 63 balls whatever. Your test doesn't prove what you say it will prove. 14.1 may be harder than golf. I dunno. I think both are hard. Your test just isn't the way to determine it. That's all. The test I proposed might not decide anything either. But it would be orders of magnitude more accurate than your comparison.

This can be said safely however. Becuase there is so much more money in golf and so many more people take serious attempts at playing at the highest levels, the competition is much tougher. It takes more talent and consistent effort to be the 100th best golfer than the 100th best pool player. Even if pool is a harder sport inherently, the numbers in golf make competing harder. The 100th best golfer is a millionaire with a hot wife, the 100th best pool player is either doing something else or starving.

In the end though, the discussion goes nowhere. What is harder, olympic diving, weightlifting, or biathlon. Who knows?

Popcorn
02-16-2004, 02:07 PM
Quote
"Effren often beats much younger players. He has that experience and from what I have seen, he usually does not fold. he seems to have the mental part mastered that many younger guys do not."

He has more tools, he just plain plays better. In the same respect that many young sharp shooters knock in older more experienced players. Some times when you see what looks like a player folding, you are often seeing the better player capitalizing on their mistakes. They may in fact make the same number of mistakes playing other players but they don't show up as dramatically as against a super player. They may at a point just give up after a reality check, they recognize how they are out classed. This should never happen though. In tournament play, a player should after the match look at the score and how things went and ask themselves honestly how they really did. If you lost to a player like say Parica 11 to 9 and he played good and you played good, you can be pretty proud. It is not always about winning but performance. Most skaters will never win a competition but they work toward a personal best. The point being as it applies to pool is, always play hard even if you feel you may not win. Make that champ have to play like a champ and you will never embarrass yourself. You may also be surprised how many times you will knock off one of those champs if you catch things going right. That is the great lesson you learn playing tournaments. You would never gamble with the guy, but in a tournament format, he doesn't always have to win. You will get a reputation as a tough player that anyone better respect, less they get beat. That is the kind of player I always like to bet on.

Sid_Vicious
02-16-2004, 11:08 PM
Good analogy...sid

ryushen21
02-17-2004, 03:24 AM
This i learn more and more every time that i play. Unlike a lot of other sport, pool is something that you are playing against yourself more than anything else. If you have the skills, and the mindset, you can beat a lot of the people that you play. I learned that in my last tournament. One guy was just beating himself. And i played a great match against UTAddb in that tournament which was one of the toughest matches i have ever played. We both played ourselves more than the other person. If you play the game right, it's all about what you can do and the other player isn't really even there.

But i do have to say that starting while you are young helps. UTAddb is a killer example of that. If any of you have played with him, you know exactly what i mean. I sat out for a year or so and then started playing seriously again and i am getting to where i am much happier with my game. But that extra playing time would have been a lot of help.

Then again, i owe a lot of my progress to Scott Lee. I am still in shock over how much just one lesson helped me. From intercollegiate B division player to A Division player in one semester. Many thanks to you Scott.

02-17-2004, 10:46 AM

#### leonard
02-17-2004, 11:34 AM
I quit playing golf at 14 years old, I was shooting in the low 90s at the time. I was 4ft 6 inches and 70 lbs, when I graduated from high school I was 5 ft 2 and 85 lbs. I then and a growth spurt of 5 inches and 35 lbs. I caddied till I was 21.

Golf was an easy sport to play, I played pool with Joe Canton, the national champion and all I did was rack balls for nearly 9 months before I started running 100s. ####

Rich R.
02-17-2004, 12:55 PM
I used to play golf, but my ball kept falling in the hole and I got tired of standing around watching everybody else play.
With pool, when the ball goes in a hole, I get to play some more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

#### leonard
02-17-2004, 02:08 PM
Rich my only problem was that Arnold Palmer wasn't my next door neighbor or I would have been a golf pro. I don't think I ever shot a 100+ even as small as I was.

As I mentioned many times before, poolplayers should have taken pool to the Country Club set. There is no one in the pool business that has the resources to promote pool but Company Presidents are in the country clubs. ####

woody_968
02-17-2004, 04:14 PM
To me the 14:1 vs golf should be looked at two different ways. To learn the basic skills needed to play golf are much more difficult to learn than they are to play pool. But once given a repeatable stroke and good skill set for both games, I would say its harder to run 100 in straight pool than it is to shoot a good score in golf.

I play both games (just learning straight pool) and have worked alot on both sports. I have broken par several times, but the thought of running 100 balls at this point seems a long ways down the road.

In golf you can hit a bad shot and still have a chance to recover to save your round. In 14:1 when you miss a ball your done (as far as running 100 goes).

Paul_Mon
02-18-2004, 07:57 AM
Woody,

I agree with you that they (golf &amp; pool) need to be looked at in different ways.

First of all what are you calling a “good score” in golf? IMO, a good score is a top 20 finish at any of the PGA tournaments. Others may consider shooting par at their municipal course a good score. But what we’re trying to compare here is top-level play in pool and golf.


What do you consider a good score in pool? Others have thrown out the standard as being running 100 balls. Well I’ve seen players run 100 (even 200 once) in local settings playing for relatively small stakes. This is indeed a great achievement but is NOT comparable with the PGA golfer who finishes in the top 20. Take these same local 100 ball runners and put them in a tournament with the world’s best pool players and they don’t win. Why? Because their ability to run 100 is only a portion of what is needed to play at the upper level.



Paul Mon~~~can't run 100, can't play par golf

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote woody_968:</font><hr> To me the 14:1 vs golf should be looked at two different ways. To learn the basic skills needed to play golf are much more difficult to learn than they are to play pool. But once given a repeatable stroke and good skill set for both games, I would say its harder to run 100 in straight pool than it is to shoot a good score in golf.

I play both games (just learning straight pool) and have worked alot on both sports. I have broken par several times, but the thought of running 100 balls at this point seems a long ways down the road.

In golf you can hit a bad shot and still have a chance to recover to save your round. In 14:1 when you miss a ball your done (as far as running 100 goes). <hr /></blockquote>