An oldie but a goodie

sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Personally, I don't see what the fuss is all about when it comes to Mosconi's run. It was done in playing conditions not befitting pro level play.

In golf, there have been a few different players that have shot 55, but who shot but these rounds is relatively unknown. On the PGA, tour, the record is 59. Do you think anyone would care if Rory Mcilroy shot 57 playing an easy golf course with his friends?

Mosconi's 526 was publicized because it suited his sponsor Brunswick. I don't think the run belongs in the record books, and I feel the same of Cranfield's 768 run in practice.
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
leto1776 said:
So then what do you feel should be the acknowledged record?
Click to expand...

Appleton's 200, done on tough equipment and under tournament pressure in a semifinal match against Bustamante, who had run 140 in his previous match.
 
L

leto1776

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So IOW, you want it to belong to a modern player on modern equipment. Another tired argument.
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
leto1776 said:
So IOW, you want it to belong to a modern player on modern equipment. Another tired argument.
Click to expand...

I could care less whether it's a modern player. I want the record to be one that was earned in pro level competition.
 
A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Appleton's 200, done on tough equipment and under tournament pressure in a semifinal match against Bustamante, who had run 140 in his previous match.
Click to expand...

It certainly was a terrific accomplishment. But whether it was tough equipment is debatable. They used an Olhausen for the streaming table in 2013, whereas the rest of the tables in the room were Gold Crowns. Based on this picture (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4314330&postcount=52) of that streaming table, I would estimate the corner pocket mouth at about 5", which is far from tough for a pro. But Olhausens tend to reject some shots hit into the pocket facings, so it probably was a little tougher than the mouth dimension alone would suggest.

About half of the matches I watched in 2013 on that table (I only missed a few that were streamed) had runs of 75 or more balls (including 6 runs of 100 or more).
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
AtLarge said:
It certainly was a terrific accomplishment. But whether it was tough equipment is debatable. They used an Olhausen for the streaming table in 2013, whereas the rest of the tables in the room were Gold Crowns. Based on this picture (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4314330&postcount=52) of that streaming table, I would estimate the corner pocket mouth at about 5", which is far from tough for a pro. But Olhausens tend to reject some shots hit into the pocket facings, so it probably was a little tougher than the mouth dimension alone would suggest.

About half of the matches I watched in 2013 on that table (I only missed a few that were streamed) had runs of 75 or more balls (including 6 runs of 100 or more).
Click to expand...

Yes, tough conditions was a poor choice on my part. The number of high runs was pretty comparable to what I saw when I attended many World 14.1 championships in the1970,s and 1980's. Calling it " Equipment befitting players of world class caliber" would be more accurate. These tables are, in my opinion, every bit as tough as what Sigel, Varner, Rempe and Mizerak competed on about thirty five years ago.
 
Dan White

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
AtLarge said:
It certainly was a terrific accomplishment. But whether it was tough equipment is debatable. They used an Olhausen for the streaming table in 2013, whereas the rest of the tables in the room were Gold Crowns. Based on this picture (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4314330&postcount=52) of that streaming table, I would estimate the corner pocket mouth at about 5", which is far from tough for a pro. But Olhausens tend to reject some shots hit into the pocket facings, so it probably was a little tougher than the mouth dimension alone would suggest.

About half of the matches I watched in 2013 on that table (I only missed a few that were streamed) had runs of 75 or more balls (including 6 runs of 100 or more).
Click to expand...

Wow... can't get away with anything around here!
 
michael4

michael4

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sorry if this question is already answered, but on a video interview Mosconi said he stopped his famous run because he got tired and just quit, not because he missed......true?
 
A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
michael4 said:
sorry if this question is already answered, but on a video interview Mosconi said he stopped his famous run because he got tired and just quit, not because he missed......true?
Click to expand...

In his autobiography, Mosconi says: "I finally missed a difficult cut shot, but by that time I was weary; it was almost a relief to have it come to an end."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top