Still...... An impressive run
Congratulations is still in order
Congratulations is still in order
Congrats to Danny Harriman 379 Ball Run Highest Ever on Video
- Thread starter maxeberle
- Start date
- Status
maybe
Maybe you know Danny personally to say he's an honest guy, I dont know him and like it that way, and unfortunately the facts tell me he's not honest at all.
Maybe you know Danny personally to say he's an honest guy, I dont know him and like it that way, and unfortunately the facts tell me he's not honest at all.
Rarified air once you get above 400. Why is Danny's score not included? Puts your entire list in credibility?
P.S. I think it's George Mikula and who the heck is Pan Ande? Never saw that name before. Plus nothing from Eufemia, Cranfield or Caras (who had dozens of runs over 200!)?
Last edited:
two cents
It was an honest mistake
1) I agree that most players know how many balls they've run for their high. That said, most player's high run is between 30-150. When you're talking about 25+ racks the idea of being off 2 racks is understandable, at that point you're well beyond counting balls and are counting racks. It's simply a math error.
2) He wouldn't do this intentionally to attract attention. For the small boost he got by adding zing to his AZ thread he has to deal with all of these accusations. Not worth it.
3) Finally, even if I'm wrong (I'm not) it's tacky to even suggest it. It's like accusing a player of dumping a match. I know it happens, but far less often than most people think and extremely less often than the accusations that fly around.
Danny is a straight shooting pool purist. He had a massive run and got a little ahead of himself. I only think it's too bad that the reward you get for achieving this level of mastery is the rights to earn a few hundred dollars on DVD sales and a bunch of anonymous enemies.
Danny, I met you once in Olathe but it was nothing more than a handshake. Sir to my last paragraph I'll add that the other thing you get is the satisfaction of having played this game at a level that only a few people in history have been blessed with. I sincerely hope that I see you again and if we have the time I'd love to play you a game of 14.1 for a few bucks and a pleasant memory.
It was an honest mistake
1) I agree that most players know how many balls they've run for their high. That said, most player's high run is between 30-150. When you're talking about 25+ racks the idea of being off 2 racks is understandable, at that point you're well beyond counting balls and are counting racks. It's simply a math error.
2) He wouldn't do this intentionally to attract attention. For the small boost he got by adding zing to his AZ thread he has to deal with all of these accusations. Not worth it.
3) Finally, even if I'm wrong (I'm not) it's tacky to even suggest it. It's like accusing a player of dumping a match. I know it happens, but far less often than most people think and extremely less often than the accusations that fly around.
Danny is a straight shooting pool purist. He had a massive run and got a little ahead of himself. I only think it's too bad that the reward you get for achieving this level of mastery is the rights to earn a few hundred dollars on DVD sales and a bunch of anonymous enemies.
Danny, I met you once in Olathe but it was nothing more than a handshake. Sir to my last paragraph I'll add that the other thing you get is the satisfaction of having played this game at a level that only a few people in history have been blessed with. I sincerely hope that I see you again and if we have the time I'd love to play you a game of 14.1 for a few bucks and a pleasant memory.
Not my list Jay..scold the author
This list was cut and pasted from Steve Lipsky's post on the 14.1 Forum..I had ZERO to do with the list..used it to prove a point that none of these players would lie and inflate their high run by 1 ball let alone 28 balls which Harriman admittedly did. So all the "way to go Danny" are sweet posts but he lied and the record is still Schmidts..
As for your "credibility" claim right now his run went from 379 to 351..it keeps dropping so I wouldn't know what it will be tomorrow or where to advise Lipsky to put it...the unfortunate consequences of lying about a run. But Danny has done a lot worse than lying about a run. If thats all he does these days then the public can feel safe again.
Enjoy your commentary Jay..take care!
This list was cut and pasted from Steve Lipsky's post on the 14.1 Forum..I had ZERO to do with the list..used it to prove a point that none of these players would lie and inflate their high run by 1 ball let alone 28 balls which Harriman admittedly did. So all the "way to go Danny" are sweet posts but he lied and the record is still Schmidts..
As for your "credibility" claim right now his run went from 379 to 351..it keeps dropping so I wouldn't know what it will be tomorrow or where to advise Lipsky to put it...the unfortunate consequences of lying about a run. But Danny has done a lot worse than lying about a run. If thats all he does these days then the public can feel safe again.
Enjoy your commentary Jay..take care!
understandable bias but its ok
See the problem starts from the very beginning of your post and then the end. You say it was "an honest mistake"...that is purely your opinion and not substantiated by the facts. The facts are he said he ran 379 had people congratulate him on breaking Schmidts record and it turns out he inflated the run by 28 balls..you are giving me opinion as to why he made a mistake in the count about racks and high numbers but every pro player with high runs knows their exact number...runs higher then 351 or 379..the guys in the 400's all know EXACTLY how many balls the made.
And the end about "shaking hands" and "a pleasant memory" and the "I hope I see you again" and calling him "Sir" just shows that you are a fan of his that wants to stick up for him under any circumstance..which is fine, unfortunately you are biased and not neutral because you are a fan and can't see the facts for what they are. Fact is he claimed a 379 and ran 351...351 is a great run, but it isn't 379 so don't claim to run that amount..especially when that amount would have been the highest ever on tape, which now we know he didn't do it and the record is still 366 by Schmidt. You are biased because you're a fan..its not uncommon and completely understandable, just not the right person to comment as a fan of his instead of a neutral party.
See the problem starts from the very beginning of your post and then the end. You say it was "an honest mistake"...that is purely your opinion and not substantiated by the facts. The facts are he said he ran 379 had people congratulate him on breaking Schmidts record and it turns out he inflated the run by 28 balls..you are giving me opinion as to why he made a mistake in the count about racks and high numbers but every pro player with high runs knows their exact number...runs higher then 351 or 379..the guys in the 400's all know EXACTLY how many balls the made.
And the end about "shaking hands" and "a pleasant memory" and the "I hope I see you again" and calling him "Sir" just shows that you are a fan of his that wants to stick up for him under any circumstance..which is fine, unfortunately you are biased and not neutral because you are a fan and can't see the facts for what they are. Fact is he claimed a 379 and ran 351...351 is a great run, but it isn't 379 so don't claim to run that amount..especially when that amount would have been the highest ever on tape, which now we know he didn't do it and the record is still 366 by Schmidt. You are biased because you're a fan..its not uncommon and completely understandable, just not the right person to comment as a fan of his instead of a neutral party.
It was a list of Living players at 200+
And his list was living players with over 200 ball runs..which is why I removed Ginky's run at society billiards
And his list was living players with over 200 ball runs..which is why I removed Ginky's run at society billiards
Why would Harriman intentionally lie when he knew the run was recorded and would be watched by others? I'm sure he didn't have some plan to lie about it then release the video and hoped no one noticed. It was a mistake and he corrected it. Still a great run.
Only he knows why
Go back and read his post about what he said happened and your question will be answered. Yes 351 is still a great run but he claimed 379 and waited days before he posted the "major problem" (his words)...and it just so happens that he needed over 366 to have the highest run on tape..351 falls short, 379 and hes a record breaker. And remember his previous lifetime high run was 280 so a little hard to believe you don't know the exact number you are shooting when its your best run ever.
Go back and read his post about what he said happened and your question will be answered. Yes 351 is still a great run but he claimed 379 and waited days before he posted the "major problem" (his words)...and it just so happens that he needed over 366 to have the highest run on tape..351 falls short, 379 and hes a record breaker. And remember his previous lifetime high run was 280 so a little hard to believe you don't know the exact number you are shooting when its your best run ever.
FWIW I def agree with Palmerfan on Danny's line of thinking in coming clean, not saying it was the sole reason, but if you want to make a few bucks from the DVD you kind of can't bs video proof. I'll also say I think Danny has turned the corner on being productive and positive, I think more and more people are warm to him and it will continue to grow as long as he plays and stays positive. His thing with the internet from what I've seen is isolated to the internet.
I think Danny is like most of us, don't mess with me I won't mess with you. Try to take me out then it's just on. Let him shine cause face it, not many pros play 14.1 all like that so I doubt the straight pool community in the USA wants to push out one of it's very top players, that just wouldn't be too logical or good for the game.
Break the record Danny and the lesson here is to be triple sure before you put things out as fact cause at the end of the day even if the mistake is honest, it will cast doubt in the future. So just make sure you run a 555 cause that's only way Palmerfan is going to believe you ran that 527.
I think Danny is like most of us, don't mess with me I won't mess with you. Try to take me out then it's just on. Let him shine cause face it, not many pros play 14.1 all like that so I doubt the straight pool community in the USA wants to push out one of it's very top players, that just wouldn't be too logical or good for the game.
Break the record Danny and the lesson here is to be triple sure before you put things out as fact cause at the end of the day even if the mistake is honest, it will cast doubt in the future. So just make sure you run a 555 cause that's only way Palmerfan is going to believe you ran that 527.
Well when you post something before you have the facts straight that happens
Add Dave Daya in the over 300 list
And Ryan McCreesh in the over 200 list
1
Last edited:
People, including straight pool players, make mistakes. And the right thing to do is to give him the benefit of the doubt. And no, I do not know Danny.
Now you, OTOH, have made a number of scurrilous charges: that he lied and did so with premeditation and malice. So let me ask you: "What is your evidence?" "Did you get details?" "Did you speak to Harriman?"
It's pretty clear you are the biased party here saying, "I call bullshit on any practice run claim of Harriman..." Could that stem, in any way, from you being CW's sock puppet. http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_fb.swf?pid=pqqsjbxnxc&as=1
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
I'd like to redirect everyone's attention to what Danny said last week about John Schmidt, as shown below:
Originally Posted by Danny Harriman
"I have a question for Schmidt, did he run the 366 on a table like the one at q-masters in Virginia that was doctored'? The only reason I ask is cause I inspected the table where he ran the 400 at q- masters and what I noticed was astounding. If the ball that was hit softly towards the pocket it would go if it got in the jaws - due to the slate being sanded where the ball rolls down-hill and actually accelerated. Plus the facings of the pocket were very soft, it was simply the softest table I had ever seen and I am not sure that a ball would even hang up in the pocket as a result of the sanded slate. I think a table like this should be illegal in Jay Helfert and Fatboys challenge offer. Did he use any jump cue's I know he likes to fall back on that as a cushion even if it's been agreed upon to be illegal. After looking over the table in Virginia I would be interested in inspecting the table where he ran his other high runs. It's not my intention to take anything away from Schmidt and his natural ability to play great pool however I realize now that some people are better at promoting themselves than others and sometimes unless we really look into the details we can be mislead. I am totally against any table where the slate has been sanded near the pocket to make the pocket accept balls like an industrial strength vaccum. Unfortunately not everyone wants a level playing field."
"I have a question for Schmidt, did he run the 366 on a table like the one at q-masters in Virginia that was doctored'? The only reason I ask is cause I inspected the table where he ran the 400 at q- masters and what I noticed was astounding. If the ball that was hit softly towards the pocket it would go if it got in the jaws - due to the slate being sanded where the ball rolls down-hill and actually accelerated. Plus the facings of the pocket were very soft, it was simply the softest table I had ever seen and I am not sure that a ball would even hang up in the pocket as a result of the sanded slate. I think a table like this should be illegal in Jay Helfert and Fatboys challenge offer. Did he use any jump cue's I know he likes to fall back on that as a cushion even if it's been agreed upon to be illegal. After looking over the table in Virginia I would be interested in inspecting the table where he ran his other high runs. It's not my intention to take anything away from Schmidt and his natural ability to play great pool however I realize now that some people are better at promoting themselves than others and sometimes unless we really look into the details we can be mislead. I am totally against any table where the slate has been sanded near the pocket to make the pocket accept balls like an industrial strength vaccum. Unfortunately not everyone wants a level playing field."
While it's commendable that Danny noticed his ball counting error and brought it to our to attention, what is not commendable is the manner in which he impugned John Schmidt's run.
The petty bickering that Danny and John engage in reminds me of the intense sibling rivalry I had with my brother many, many years ago. This petty bickering between John and Danny needs to stop as it is harming the reputation of the players and our sport.
NO jump cues!
And the way to encourage it to is to remind everyone what was said by quoting it?
Isn't that kind of like standing on a corner handing out playboy magazines to people and railing against the nudity?
And for what it's worth John has not said a word here in this thread. Nor has he said much at all on AZB for a while. (not that I have seen)
So it's pretty much one-sided at this point as far as using the forum as the venue.
tap tap tap
I applaud John for not being drawn into this thread. I believe most people would easily be going off in here.
I'm really not on board with all the excitement over beating 526, the highest exhibition run in history (not the highest practice run, that would belong to Cranfield, 768, and it was one of two times he broke 700). In competition, these records are not in play, as long races are no longer played. I don't think that a run of 1,000 would make any difference to anybody outside pool circles and I don't think it would do much for pro pool either. Few pool players know of these record runs, let alone anybody else.
Nonetheless, whether one wants to break the highest practice run or the highest exhibition run record, the deck is stacked against them. These runs were completed on easier equipment. Today's top players shoot straighter than both Mosconi and Cranfield (perhaps only Lassiter shot as straight as today's best sharpshooters) but they do not play on easy equipment. Put today's best on such equipment and, with due respect to Mosconi and Cranfield, their records wouldn't last long.
Attempted comparisons between the generations reached, by far, their most ridiculous levels at Derby City this year. Thanks to tight ten foot tables, other than an unknown snooker pro named Pettman, the field that included Feijen, Pagulayan, Eberle, Orcullo, See and Hohmann failed to run 100 even once despite hundreds of attempts among them over a period of about five days. How good does Irving Crane's 309 look now? Oh wait, he didn't play on this kind of equipment.
Today's best 14.1 players may lack the technical elegance of a Mosconi, Crane, Varner, Mizerak, Cranfield, West or Hopkins, but today's best players would run more than all of them on similiar equipment.
It is time to let today's players play on the kind of equipment on which the old masters made their greatest runs. All this nitpicking about minor aspects of these runs (cleaning, polishing, resting, etc.) is time wasted. If somebody breaks the exhibition and practice records on the kind of equipment in use today, it will be much greater feat than any 14.1 runs by the old masters.
I think we all seem to be stuck comparing apples and oranges.
Nonetheless, whether one wants to break the highest practice run or the highest exhibition run record, the deck is stacked against them. These runs were completed on easier equipment. Today's top players shoot straighter than both Mosconi and Cranfield (perhaps only Lassiter shot as straight as today's best sharpshooters) but they do not play on easy equipment. Put today's best on such equipment and, with due respect to Mosconi and Cranfield, their records wouldn't last long.
Attempted comparisons between the generations reached, by far, their most ridiculous levels at Derby City this year. Thanks to tight ten foot tables, other than an unknown snooker pro named Pettman, the field that included Feijen, Pagulayan, Eberle, Orcullo, See and Hohmann failed to run 100 even once despite hundreds of attempts among them over a period of about five days. How good does Irving Crane's 309 look now? Oh wait, he didn't play on this kind of equipment.
Today's best 14.1 players may lack the technical elegance of a Mosconi, Crane, Varner, Mizerak, Cranfield, West or Hopkins, but today's best players would run more than all of them on similiar equipment.
It is time to let today's players play on the kind of equipment on which the old masters made their greatest runs. All this nitpicking about minor aspects of these runs (cleaning, polishing, resting, etc.) is time wasted. If somebody breaks the exhibition and practice records on the kind of equipment in use today, it will be much greater feat than any 14.1 runs by the old masters.
I think we all seem to be stuck comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited:
- Status