Best 14:1 Player Ever-John Schmidt or Willie Mosconi?

the420trooper

the420trooper

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?
 
Love Mr. 400 But........................

the420trooper said:
Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


THORSTEN "TOASTIE" HOHMANN
 
I beg to differ, Trooper. My guess is you never watched or played with clay balls or the "grass" that used to pass as pool cloth. Big pockets? Most of the recognized greats of 14.1 started their road to fame on 5' x 10' tables. There was a reason Willie (and most of the other greats) carried around there own set of billiard balls. I have great respect for John's game but PLEASE! As much as I love Simonis 760 and 860, they play much too easy. With modern equipment, the legends of our game would be more than competative with anyone playing today. Look at the transformation in the game of golf!

Lyn
 
I really lie John, he is a good friend who I firmly should make every attempt to break that record. He will be doing alot for himeself and pool as well. Its "THE" record. I hope he dedicates himself to breaking it, I believe he can do it. The cue might feel a little funny at 520 but he is mentally strong, tough as nails, I watched it again this week and thats what 14.1 takes(and this opinoion is comming from a player with a high run of 8, I can run more balls playing one hole, than 14.1):smile: Seriously JS can do it for sure. the old record is too old anyways.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm biased because Willie was a dear friend and mentor, and with all due respect to John, I have to go with Willie. He still holds the records for 100+ runs in competition, a lot of which were on 5x10 tables. He dominated the game for almost 20 years. Sorry, Willies got my vote.;)
 
cardiac kid said:
I beg to differ, Trooper. My guess is you never watched or played with clay balls or the "grass" that used to pass as pool cloth. Big pockets? Most of the recognized greats of 14.1 started their road to fame on 5' x 10' tables. There was a reason Willie (and most of the other greats) carried around there own set of billiard balls. I have great respect for John's game but PLEASE! As much as I love Simonis 760 and 860, they play much too easy. With modern equipment, the legends of our game would be more than competative with anyone playing today. Look at the transformation in the game of golf!

Lyn
Click to expand...

There's a BIG difference between 4 1/2 inches and 5 inches...but I will concede that fast cloth makes the game easier in some respects.

But the pro cut of the Diamond pockets as compared to the obtuse Brunswick cut, makes them totally different worlds.

On the Diamond tables, you can't cheat the pockets much, on some angles not at all.

And, if you hit the rail above the pocket on the Diamond, the ball will stay on the table and laugh at you. The Brunswicks of Willie's day ate balls like a hungry tiger.
 
Fatboy said:
this opinoion is comming from a player with a high run of 8, I can run more balls playing one hole):smile:
Click to expand...

Eric, we know you're just trying to stir up some straight pool action....You don't have to "work" us.:D
 
You need to get past long run before you can make any kind of meaningful comparison, Trooper. When John Schmidt (a terrific player and one of the nicer guys around) has dominated 14.1 for 20 years as Mosconi did, you'll have a reasonable basis by which to compare them. GF
 
I began playing pool at 6, began playing daily at 10. So I remember the days of the "old" tables even at my age. Had a few "old" pool halls growing up where they would rack the balls for 10 cent lol... And I tell you what, tight pockets or not, I will take a Diamond anyday over the old cloth, old rails, old heavy balls etc... Don't think the Diamond is a harder table to play on because it is not. You must be thinking about the Gold Crown 1 which most of those were BUCKETS lol...
Anyways, Willie is my vote for sure hands down... 30 years from now this will change for ALOT of people as they will not remember Willie as some do now.
I think it was Billy Incardona who said, the greats of yesterday as compared to today are about the same talent wise. It is just more of them today. But Willie shined above them all back then... :thumbup:
 
the420trooper said:
On the Diamond tables, you can't cheat the pockets much, on some angles not at all. And, if you hit the rail above the pocket on the Diamond, the ball will stay on the table and laugh at you. The Brunswicks of Willie's day ate balls like a hungry tiger.
Click to expand...

Trooper, there is something called "pocket speed". I play my best on Diamonds. Especially "Pro Cut" tables. If you hit the object ball with the "correct" speed, it will fall even if you hit short of the pocket. Most modern players feel they can be heros hitting the balls "100mph":eek: ! That doesn't work on the Diamonds. Neither does "babying" the shot. Too little speed will hang the object ball as well.

Lyn
 
14.1 skill shouldn't be lost on pocket size. There is a point where the run isn't dictated by shotmaking. You have to know what you are doing as opposed to just hitting the center of the pocket all of the time. Too much pool is lost on mechanics/deflection/shotmaking.

Although I will say that I would not be suprised to hear of a new high run very soon, because guys like Schmidt and Hohmann dedicate a lot of time to the game and churn out some jaw dropping high runs.

Justin.
 
The greatest ever ?

the420trooper said:
Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!
 
14oneman said:
Well, I'm biased because Willie was a dear friend and mentor, and with all due respect to John, I have to go with Willie. He still holds the records for 100+ runs in competition, a lot of which were on 5x10 tables. He dominated the game for almost 20 years. Sorry, Willies got my vote.;)
Click to expand...

Willie ever talk about a gentleman by the name of Billy Costello?
 
cardiac kid said:
Trooper, there is something called "pocket speed". I play my best on Diamonds. Especially "Pro Cut" tables. If you hit the object ball with the "correct" speed, it will fall even if you hit short of the pocket. Most modern players feel they can be heros hitting the balls "100mph":eek: ! That doesn't work on the Diamonds. Neither does "babying" the shot. Too little speed will hang the object ball as well.

Lyn
Click to expand...



You really think you play better pool on a tight Diamond than you would on a sloppy 4X8 with no pocket shelf? Willie's high run was played on an oversized barbox. (But, it is pretty impressive that he never scratched once during the run.)
 
Last edited:
There are other 400+ high runs besides John Schmidt's

Folks:

I'm not sure if this particular website/source is authentically accurate, but there are other 400+ high runs besides John Schmidt's:

http://hermund.ardalen.com/straightpoolhighruns.htm

And, as a couple of responders have already pointed out, one- or two-off high-runs does not a legendary player make. Sure, Willie's record sort has an asterisk beside it, because it was done on a 8'x4' table with 5" pockets, but that was also with clay balls and thick-nap cloth. This is a big difference from the plastic balls and worsted cloth of today, no matter what size table. Willie (and virtually all of the other legendary straight pool greats) accomplished high runs like these on numerous occasions. This is certainly not to detract from John's talent (and certainly a very cool guy), but methinks it's premature to be mixing his name around with the legendary greats -- at least just yet.

EDIT: If there was ever a player out today that has the ability to top Willie's record -- and do it without the "asterisk" to boot -- it definitely would be John!

Thoughts?
-Sean

the420trooper said:
Willie's famed high run of 526 balls was on a 4X8 Brunswick with 5 inch pockets, and practically no pocket shelf.

John Schmidt has run a 402 (I think that number's right. John, please correct me if I'm wrong), on a 4 1/2 X 9 Diamond Pro with 4 1/2 inch pockets.

I vote for John Schmidt, as the bigger table and smaller pockets make his accomplishment a lot harder to achieve.

I would almost guarantee that during Willie's run, he wobbled in a few balls that wouldn't have gone on the aforementioned Diamond.

Tight pockets make for a completely different pool game, imo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
John ran a 403 when he first received his Ob-1 Shaft in 2007. I believe that is his current high run.

I don't know if it was on John's 245 Ball Run DVD, or the 112 from the 2006 DCC, but I know John describes the table that he ran his 400 on as having "generous" pockets (as if that really matters).

John also addresses whether or not Mosconi's record will ever be broken on his 245 run DVD.

Playing 14.1 on a 4X8 is much more difficult due to the reduced margin of error (IMO).

John is a great player and a very humble man. I am sure he does not stay up at nights comparing himself to any player, especially Willie Mosconi.

IMO, the greatest modern day run is Thomas Engert's 492.
 
You guys have made some good points here, and maybe I shouldn't have stuck names into the thread.

The point that I wanted to make is that pool can be vastly different, depending on the table you play on. Mosconi insisted tables tailored to his specs, (sloppy), or he wouldn't play.

Guys LIKE John Schmidt, Thorsten Hohmann, Thomas Engert, etc. prefer tighter tables, because that's where great players really shine.

Example: When the old Sands 9 ball tournaments had huge pockets, 7 packs were common. Can anyone remember a 7 pack in a Derby City match played on Diamonds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top