Better equipment, shafts, Tips, and Kamui Chalk, but the 526 RUN RECORDS Stands?

[poolplayer2093]

I'm asking for two reasons. First: this is a world record by, arguably, the greatest pool player of all time. If you're going to throw cold water on his record here on AZ, you should at least be wiling to provide a citation.

Second, I did quick scan through the book and didn't see what you claimed. Just to show you how it works: what I said Grady said is on page 24. The book also has a very nice picture of Willie on page 33 and a likeness on 35. See how that works? Needless to say, I read (and still have) the book and don't have the same recollection you do. But I could be wrong and await your citation.

If you're going to claim you *heard* something like you did about a champion like Willie on the biggest pool site on the internet (forget about the fact that he traveled cross-country for many years with no control of what kind of equipment he'd encounter day after day, or the highly publicized snooker matches he played), you should be able to back it up beyond, "From what I hear mosconi wouldn't play on a table with pockets that were under 5".

Lou Figueroa

You want to show me how it works??? keep reading man. if it's not in there then maybe it was in danny diliberto's book. i've read a lot of pool books but that bit really stuck with me because it seemed extreme. there was even something about Mosconi throwing fits and complaining about equipment and throwing chalk out of anger.

i think i read something about the table size in a different thread here on az. if you want to look it up go ahead. i'm not going to go buy the book again just to point it out

 

[The Chinchilla]

A friend of mine that played willie many times made some comments on this same topic. I just note that because he was from the same era, these are not mosconi thoughts!! But what he said was, and I don't remember clearly enough to quote him exactly, but he was pretty much saying that a table that isn't conducive to 100 ball runs "doesn't play right." In essence, he was denouncing tight pockets. I always scoffed at this sentiment of his myself.

So, maybe players back then had a tendency to think this way?? I don't know.... just thought this tidbit may be interesting to some. And no i'll leave his name out of it.... he never won anything major, but played strong. And yes, I do realize this doesn't mean willie felt this way too, but it is possible.

 

[JB Cases]

Yeah, Steve, but your bounty in those two events was for the run on Diamond tables, and I would not expect the record to be broken, if at all, on a Diamond.

You would expect to see some 200plus runs maybe a few 300s though if someone is capable of breaking the record.

Let's examine this from another angle for a moment.

When Willie did this he was playing straight pool every day in exhibitions. He had been playing only straight pool all his life. It's fair to say that he knew as much or more about straight pool at that moment than any other player living.

So you combine this 14.1 god with a relatively easy table and you end up with results like this.

The only reason this stands as a record is because of the affidavit. I think it was a fluke that happened because Mosconi was a well-oiled 14.1 machine, he was in a good mood so he allowed himself to continue, and the table was much easier than the championship 5x10 with 4.5" pockets that he would play on in competition.

It's an amazing feat nonetheless. But John Schmidt's 400 on a tougher Diamond, Engert's 492 on a 9ft with tighter pockets, The 700+ runs reported done by Eufemia and Cranfield already eclipse Mosconi's run in my mind.

 

[lfigueroa]

I thought it might be time to get this thread back on track. This just may be the first time this particular OP has posed a reasonable question, so why don't we try to provide a reasonable answer?

Cocobolo Cowboy didn't mention anything about the table size, pocket size or shelf depth, so they should not be the points of contention here. I'm sure the late, great Willie Mosconi was neither intimidated by an extra foot in table size, nor encouraged by one foot less. When you shoot as straight as Willie did, one foot, more or less, will make absolutely no difference whether or not the ball will go in the hole. Also, unless a lack of skill forces one to use the rails a lot in order to cheat the pockets for good position, the pocket openings and shelf depths are of no consequence, either. I saw Willie shoot in person, and he had no such lack of skill.

So why don't we get back to contemplating CC's original question? Why is it that the OFFICIAL record has never been broken despite now having shafts that shoot straighter, tips that hold up better, and chalk that miscues less?

Roger

Maybe it's because most of the champions nowadays are busy diversifying, whereas circa 1954 and before, it was mostly about straight pool. So you had this body of players who were all specializing in one particular discipline. Now I know there are those (who are not 14.1 players) who might say that pool is pool and with the "any ball any pocket" stipulation the game takes no special skills. But that's not so. The game does take particular skills that I don't think get as developed shooting other games. And without those skills having been developed, refined, and maintained, it's less likely that a huge run will be produced. So now to begin with you have a much small coterie of players shooting for the runs, but I don't believe a one of them is solely a 14.1 specialist.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

What do you have on his high run outside of 526 balls and an 8' table? Facts or what you've heard? If it's hearsay don't forget to cite the source.....

I can see you're done on this topic.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Welcome to the party Kirk... Lou is doing what he does best.

Questioning the nits?

Lou Figueroa
looking like a pretty good guess
right about now ;-)

 

[lfigueroa]

You want to show me how it works??? keep reading man. if it's not in there then maybe it was in danny diliberto's book. i've read a lot of pool books but that bit really stuck with me because it seemed extreme. there was even something about Mosconi throwing fits and complaining about equipment and throwing chalk out of anger.

i think i read something about the table size in a different thread here on az. if you want to look it up go ahead. i'm not going to go buy the book again just to point it out

lol. OK, I get it: you don't have a reference. Maybe you read it here, maybe you read it there, maybe over some place else...

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

A friend of mine that played willie many times made some comments on this same topic. I just note that because he was from the same era, these are not mosconi thoughts!! But what he said was, and I don't remember clearly enough to quote him exactly, but he was pretty much saying that a table that isn't conducive to 100 ball runs "doesn't play right." In essence, he was denouncing tight pockets. I always scoffed at this sentiment of his myself.

So, maybe players back then had a tendency to think this way?? I don't know.... just thought this tidbit may be interesting to some. And no i'll leave his name out of it.... he never won anything major, but played strong. And yes, I do realize this doesn't mean willie felt this way too, but it is possible.

When I played some of the locals a few years ago at the late Comet Billiards in NJ, on the stupid tight table they had over in the corner, I got the same kind of thinking from them, but just the reverse for 1pocket. They were all saying that unless a table was set up super tight, it wasn't a good table for 1pocket because 1pocket wasn't about running eight and out. Go figure.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

You would expect to see some 200plus runs maybe a few 300s though if someone is capable of breaking the record.

Let's examine this from another angle for a moment.

When Willie did this he was playing straight pool every day in exhibitions. He had been playing only straight pool all his life. It's fair to say that he knew as much or more about straight pool at that moment than any other player living.

So you combine this 14.1 god with a relatively easy table and you end up with results like this.

The only reason this stands as a record is because of the affidavit. I think it was a fluke that happened because Mosconi was a well-oiled 14.1 machine, he was in a good mood so he allowed himself to continue, and the table was much easier than the championship 5x10 with 4.5" pockets that he would play on in competition.

It's an amazing feat nonetheless. But John Schmidt's 400 on a tougher Diamond, Engert's 492 on a 9ft with tighter pockets, The 700+ runs reported done by Eufemia and Cranfield already eclipse Mosconi's run in my mind.

I can't believe I'm about to say this but (arrrrgh) I think John is right on the mark. I think in addition I would add one more thought: I believe it was Mosconi's particular playing style that helped him do this on a smaller table where there would inevitably be more congestion. He liked to take the balls apart, sort of from the inside out, playing close quarter position from the rack area and shooting to all six pockets, as opposed to other players who liked to take them off from the outside in, tended to plant their cue ball more towards the center of the table, and shoot to the bottom four pockets.

Lou Figueroa

 

[easy-e]

I thought it might be time to get this thread back on track. This just may be the first time this particular OP has posed a reasonable question, so why don't we try to provide a reasonable answer?

Cocobolo Cowboy didn't mention anything about the table size, pocket size or shelf depth, so they should not be the points of contention here. I'm sure the late, great Willie Mosconi was neither intimidated by an extra foot in table size, nor encouraged by one foot less. When you shoot as straight as Willie did, one foot, more or less, will make absolutely no difference whether or not the ball will go in the hole. Also, unless a lack of skill forces one to use the rails a lot in order to cheat the pockets for good position, the pocket openings and shelf depths are of no consequence, either. I saw Willie shoot in person, and he had no such lack of skill.

So why don't we get back to contemplating CC's original question? Why is it that the OFFICIAL record has never been broken despite now having shafts that shoot straighter, tips that hold up better, and chalk that miscues less?

Roger

I have to respectfully disagree that pocket size and shelf depth are "of no consequence". How many times have you examined the group of balls and had a ball that was "almost dead". A ball that is dead on a big pocket with a shallow shelf may not be dead on a diamond.

 

[The Saw]

I can see you're done on this topic.

Lou Figueroa

Wow, you're a jewel Lou.... You're quick to discount what anyone else says or has an opinion on but don't have a single fact or even any hearsay to contribute. Well, I do.... And it drives you apesh!t that someone else knows more than you do.

Things I know:

George Rood and Russ Maddox bought that poolroom and its tables shortly after the exhibition and 526 run.

George always said the pockets were big but never specified how big. George was of the train of thought that 4-1/2 inch pockets on a 9' table were fair. So for him to say the pockets on the 526 table were big speaks volumes. As I said before, my guy Johnny played on the table in question and said it was the biggest bucket table he had ever seen and was in his 70's at the time. He had only been playing for almost 60 years when he said that. Coming from a good player that travelled the region and seen two or three tables in his days speaks volumes.....

Why did Willie play on an 8' table when a 9' table was available? Ohhh, because it wasn't a Brunswick table.... That makes it okay....

37 people signed the affadavit but its been said 300 people were in attendance. Why only 37 signatures? Pretty strange if you ask me.... I know if something that momentous happened in any of the poolrooms I've been in 298 of them would sign, the other 2 wouldn't sign because they didn't want the cops being able to track them. Could be the other 263 people didn't like something they seen....

Mike Eufemia beat it in an exhibition and they recorded signatures but no one accepted it. My thought is that Eufemia wasn't a Brunswick guy like Mosconi and whether anyone wants to admit it, Brunswick had their thumb firmly planted over the BCA and ran things. If they had awarded Eufemia the high run the BCA would have been done and Brunswick would have created a new authority over pool...

Go get your eyes checked Lou, as you can now see, I wasn't done....

 

[Roger Long]

You would expect to see some 200plus runs maybe a few 300s though if someone is capable of breaking the record.

Let's examine this from another angle for a moment.

When Willie did this he was playing straight pool every day in exhibitions. He had been playing only straight pool all his life. It's fair to say that he knew as much or more about straight pool at that moment than any other player living.

So you combine this 14.1 god with a relatively easy table and you end up with results like this.

The only reason this stands as a record is because of the affidavit. I think it was a fluke that happened because Mosconi was a well-oiled 14.1 machine, he was in a good mood so he allowed himself to continue, and the table was much easier than the championship 5x10 with 4.5" pockets that he would play on in competition.

It's an amazing feat nonetheless. But John Schmidt's 400 on a tougher Diamond, Engert's 492 on a 9ft with tighter pockets, The 700+ runs reported done by Eufemia and Cranfield already eclipse Mosconi's run in my mind.

I think John provided the best answer here. Players don't constantly work on their 14.1 game anymore.

As far as equipment goes, some changes may help and others can hinder. For example: low-deflection shafts may help, while tight pockets can hinder. There is a limit as to how tight pockets should be in order to play pool the way it was meant to be played. In the games of 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, 14.1, and One-Pocket, you have to be able to create angles in order to move the cue ball around. While extremely tight pockets might require extremely straight shooting - which in itself is pretty impressive - they limit the angle-creativity too much, and then the game is changed to the point of boredom.

Roger

 

[The Saw]

I can't believe I'm about to say this but (arrrrgh) I think John is right on the mark. I think in addition I would add one more thought: I believe it was Mosconi's particular playing style that helped him do this on a smaller table where there would inevitably be more congestion. He liked to take the balls apart, sort of from the inside out, playing close quarter position from the rack area and shooting to all six pockets, as opposed to other players who liked to take them off from the outside in, tended to plant their cue ball more towards the center of the table, and shoot to the bottom four pockets.

Lou Figueroa

Everyone always wants to say that since the table is smaller that theres more congestion and hence its tougher to run out.... BS! You can't show me one pocket billiard game where its tougher on a smaller table! Especially with elite players playing..... It makes kisses and caroms much easier to play, its easier to pocket balls, easier to play shape on multiple balls, etc.... Everything is easier. Why are we now seeing a resurgence of 10' tables? Riddle me that..... Because its less congested and easier? LOL

The first time I ever seen John Schmidt was when he first travelled east from California in a poolroom in Columbus, Georgia. He was practicing straight pool on an 8'er, it was a total joke.... AND, that was on a Gold Crown with regular pockets (no bigger than 4-3/4", maybe 4-1/2). No comparison to me seeing him play straight pool years later on a 9'er when he was a much better player. On a super loose 8'er like the 526 table John may shoot until his eyes start bleeding from lack of sleep....

I've seen Corey play a lot of rotation on a 9'er and its the most impessive thing I have ever personally witnessed in pool. I've also seen him play it on a bar box.... Most people think its impossible because of "congestion". Its a joke, that what it is..... Wayyyyyy easier on the bar table.

 

[The Saw]

Questioning the nits?

Lou Figueroa
looking like a pretty good guess
right about now ;-)

Guess again fool..... Thats some funny sh!t, you calling other people nits!!! Do a poll. Whos the nittier poster and whos the nittier gambler, me or you? That poll will put you in your place. Nit.

 

[lfigueroa]

Wow, you're a jewel Lou.... You're quick to discount what anyone else says or has an opinion on but don't have a single fact or even any hearsay to contribute. Well, I do.... And it drives you apesh!t that someone else knows more than you do.

Things I know:

George Rood and Russ Maddox bought that poolroom and its tables shortly after the exhibition and 526 run.

George always said the pockets were big but never specified how big. George was of the train of thought that 4-1/2 inch pockets on a 9' table were fair. So for him to say the pockets on the 526 table were big speaks volumes. As I said before, my guy Johnny played on the table in question and said it was the biggest bucket table he had ever seen and was in his 70's at the time. He had only been playing for almost 60 years when he said that. Coming from a good player that travelled the region and seen two or three tables in his days speaks volumes.....

Why did Willie play on an 8' table when a 9' table was available? Ohhh, because it wasn't a Brunswick table.... That makes it okay....

37 people signed the affadavit but its been said 300 people were in attendance. Why only 37 signatures? Pretty strange if you ask me.... I know if something that momentous happened in any of the poolrooms I've been in 298 of them would sign, the other 2 wouldn't sign because they didn't want the cops being able to track them. Could be the other 263 people didn't like something they seen....

Mike Eufemia beat it in an exhibition and they recorded signatures but no one accepted it. My thought is that Eufemia wasn't a Brunswick guy like Mosconi and whether anyone wants to admit it, Brunswick had their thumb firmly planted over the BCA and ran things. If they had awarded Eufemia the high run the BCA would have been done and Brunswick would have created a new authority over pool...

Go get your eyes checked Lou, as you can now see, I wasn't done....

lol. What is clear to me is that you'd have to be pretty stupid to think you'd have any clue as to what would drive me apeshit. But I digress. Just for fun, a couple of points, since you've put on your turban and pulled out your crystal ball and are doing your mindreader act you should be able to figure out the rest on your own:

So, the pockets were big. Everyone acknowledges that.

Your boy Johnny must not have gotten around much (even you admit he only got around "the region") because anyone who did was well aware of how the Brunswick tables of that and previous eras played. If those were the biggest pockets he'd ever seen he never made it to the major rooms.

Mosconi was under contract to Brunswick and wanted to play on his sponsor's table -- makes sense to me.

As to the number of signatures, who knows why only some guys signed. Maybe the affidavit was an afterthought. It may have taken time for the idea to come up and get organized and it was already late when the run ended -- like 1am -- and people wanted to get home. But I guess you'd rather revel in conspiracy theories.

Extra points, oh Mystic Saw, if you can tell me what I'm thinking about you now ;-)

Lou Figuera

 

[Roger Long]

Why are we now seeing a resurgence of 10' tables? Riddle me that.....

I don't believe there is any resurgence of 10' tables going on. Nick Varner made the comment to me just the other day that he thinks 8-footers and 9-footers are on their way out, and that everybody will be playing on barboxes before long. That sounded a little far fetched to me, but I think it's a far more accurate statement than saying there is a "resurgence" of 10-foot tables.

Roger

 

[The Saw]

Your boy Johnny must not have gotten around much (even you admit he only got around "the region") because anyone who did was well aware of how the Brunswick tables of that and previous eras played. If those were the biggest pockets he'd ever seen he never made it to the major rooms. OMG!!! Thats what I've been inferring all along!!! WOW!!! Are you really that dense???

Mosconi was under contract to Brunswick and wanted to play on his sponsor's table -- makes sense to me. 9' and 10' tables were the standard for professional play at the time. For him to set the record on an 8' table when a 9' table was available, regardless of the make, is chickenshit, plain and simple.... If it were a non-Brunswick sponsored player and they opted to play on an 8' instead of a 9', would the BCA have accepted the record? No.....

As to the number of signatures, who knows why only some guys signed. Maybe the affidavit was an afterthought. It may have taken time for the idea to come up and get organized and it was already late when the run ended -- like 1am -- and people wanted to get home. But I guess you'd rather revel in conspiracy theories. The run took 2 hours and 10 minutes..... It was 1954 and he was doing an exhibition, do you really think they didn't start until 10:30 or 11:00??? Nice try.... Spinning it with pure speculation now, huh Lou?

Extra points, oh Mystic Saw, if you can tell me what I'm thinking about you now ;-) I don't want to even consider the sick, twisted things you have in your big head....

My reds................

 

[The Saw]

I don't believe there is any resurgence of 10' tables going on. Nick Varner made the comment to me just the other day that he thinks 8-footers and 9-footers are on their way out, and that everybody will be playing on barboxes before long. That sounded a little far fetched to me, but I think it's a far more accurate statement than saying there is a "resurgence" of 10-foot tables.

Roger

Roger,

Yes, its true that bar tables have gained favor in the past 10 years but what I have seen in my travels has been that 8'ers are on their way out as most rooms now have 9' and bar tables now, no 8'ers. And there is somewhat of a resurgence of 10'ers... Diamond is starting to produce 10' drop pocket tables. When was the last time a billiard manufacturer did that?

 

[topcat1953]

This is a great thread, but some points are becoming ridiculous. Any implications that Willie played on a Brunswick 8' table with 5" or whatever size pocket with the intentions of setting a new record are simply unreal.
Let's try and envision being there. Willie ends his exhibition match with a local by running X number of balls out. The crowd encourages him to go on and on he goes. Two and a half hours later, the run ends. Some say he missed a five ball. Willie says on tape that he got tired and stopped shooting. Regardless, of the 300 there at the beginning, many would have left. A lawyer, who was present, decides or was encouraged to the fact that this run must be special and he gets signatures and types up an affidavit. Thus, the legend begins.
Many of the greatest 14.1 players since then have not acheived breaking the record. Not Hopkins, Mizerak, Martin, Lassiter, Crane, Sigel or Varner.
The big runs by Eufemia and Cranfield apparently do not have the proper paperwork to dethrone the 526 as the official record. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, they're just not eligible to be recognized.
None of that is Willie's fault. He just made a run and thought nothing of it. He didn't brag about it, he didn't belittle anyone about it. Often, he admitted that some of the other players may even play better than him. But, none had the fire inside and could win like he could.
Perhaps one of the great talents of Today's players will break the record. It can be done.
But, to appreciate the 526, I suggest to anyone judging the conditions, go find the "easiest" table you can find and then run as many balls as you can. See how close you come to 526.
Of the pool players in this Country, what percentage of them have run 300 balls? Or 200 balls? Or 100 balls? Or even 50 balls?
I believe it is on Danny Harriman's dvd where he runs 280 or so, he admits to almost missing when he was aware of breaking his own personal mark and soon did err after that.
Anyone who truly understands it, pool is pool, balls are balls, size and conditions are different everywhere you go. The best players adjust to those conditions and still perform.
Willie was special.
Think about it.

 

[Bobby]

Let's not forget that Mosconi also had the highest run on a 5 x 10 table also with 365 and also a 353. Those are damn impressive runs on a 10ft table.