I think most of the elite 14. players of today would give their eye-teeth and left nut to have a video of themselves breaking the record.
Lou Figueroa
The True Record Hi Run
- Thread starter billinboston
- Start date
I think most of the elite 14. players of today would give their eye-teeth and left nut to have a video of themselves breaking the record.
Lou Figueroa
Are you a straight pool player? I ask because of your comment about how the run looks not mattering. It matters completely because if a player makes it look easy it means the player is in total command of the table and balls. And it means they are far, far more likely to run more balls more often.
Lou Figueroa
The record will be broken, no doubt. But if it was easy it would have bee already done. Less we forget, the record has stood for over 50 years.
Lou Figueroa
Don't need to see him, to know Mosconi was supernaturally dominant
at the game when it was all anyone played.
Think about it. In a game that is widely considered to have the least luck,
Willie won something like... 15 out of 17 years that he entered the World Straight Pool tournament,
against hall-of-fame players.
We make a big deal about Shane winning his 3rd US Open, which is indeed amazing.
Imagine if Shane won every US Open between now and 2030.
What Willie did is kinda like that.
It's sick.
That being said, a handful of guys alive right now have passed 400 balls,
and I believe they could pass 526 if they tried every day.
But they'd have to quit their day job, which doesn't pay enough
to allow someone to just take half a year off.
Someone mentioned a 30k. I could be crazy but I thought I remembered seeing
someone (Billy I? Grady?) offer 10,000 to whoever could beat it.
Mark Griffin offered to match prize money in a contest up to 20k for anyone who beat it.
I think though that if you want Hohmann and Schmidt to spend a year hammering away at it,
you'd need something like... $30k guaranteed if someone travels around doing exhibitions,
as Mosconi did, and making a serious effort at every venue to put up a record.
Then an additional $30k bonus if they succeed.
at the game when it was all anyone played.
Think about it. In a game that is widely considered to have the least luck,
Willie won something like... 15 out of 17 years that he entered the World Straight Pool tournament,
against hall-of-fame players.
We make a big deal about Shane winning his 3rd US Open, which is indeed amazing.
Imagine if Shane won every US Open between now and 2030.
What Willie did is kinda like that.
It's sick.
That being said, a handful of guys alive right now have passed 400 balls,
and I believe they could pass 526 if they tried every day.
But they'd have to quit their day job, which doesn't pay enough
to allow someone to just take half a year off.
Someone mentioned a 30k. I could be crazy but I thought I remembered seeing
someone (Billy I? Grady?) offer 10,000 to whoever could beat it.
Mark Griffin offered to match prize money in a contest up to 20k for anyone who beat it.
I think though that if you want Hohmann and Schmidt to spend a year hammering away at it,
you'd need something like... $30k guaranteed if someone travels around doing exhibitions,
as Mosconi did, and making a serious effort at every venue to put up a record.
Then an additional $30k bonus if they succeed.
.................
Last edited:
I understand exactly what you have been saying Lou. I don't think you are understanding my point. In regards to comparing run lengths, a player that can run 200 the wrong way is better than a player that can only run 100 but does it the right way. A player that can run 400 the wrong way is a player that is better than the guy that can only run 300 but who did it the right way. Any player that can run more than 526 on the same equipment that Mosconi did has to be considered a better player than Mosconi.
My point is that the only thing that really matters when comparing runs lengths between players is guess what, the run length, not how pretty it is. The exception is when you have two players whose high run lengths are the same or very close. Then clearly whoever did it the "right" way or made it look the easiest is the better of the two. But if somebody runs 700, I don't care what it looks like, they are better at straight pool than Mosconi. Period.
Obviously there are other factors to a player besides just their high run as well (like average run amongst a billion others) but they don't for the most part change the gist of my point.
Last edited:
But that has zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with how he would have compared to the players in another era.
Let me spell it out. Let's say the best mile runner 60 years ago ran a 4 minute mile. The next best guy could only run a mile in 4:30. For years and years this guy ran a 4 minute mile and just absolutely dominated everybody, for years. No, for decades. Nobody else was even close. According to your argument, this guy would be a better mile runner than everybody today. Get it now?
The truth is high school kids run 4 minute miles now. That 4 minute mile runner from 60 years ago would be decent but not anywhere near the top now. But according to you he would be the best even today since he was so dominant in his time.
How much somebody dominated in one time period does not matter in the least when comparing them to another time period and usually is not even worth mentioning much less using it as the basis for your argument.
Last edited:
Well I have mixed feelings - this thread has sparked a good bit of interest in the grand
old game - maybe somebody will go whack a few balls because of inspiration.
Your pontification/participation has doubtless generated more 'discussion' than would
have occurred without it.
However, it is painfully obvious you are an uninformed troll with no respect for the truth.
So I hereby elect to take my oft repeated advice.
"Do not feed the trolls."
Dale
This is one of the silliest posts I've read in a while. Yes, I'm to the point. Yes, I am pretty matter of fact and don't banter around and small talk a lot. Yes, I will sometimes argue a point vehemently when it is based on fact and logic and the other person's is not. No, I'm not afraid to step in and correct someone when they fail to use reading comprehension, or they fail to use logic, and my tolerance for those two things is low. But nobody with any sense would think that I am trolling, or that I am uninformed, or most of all that I have no respect for the truth. I have done or been none of those things. Frankly I think you just don't understand a lot of what I say because it is all based strictly in logic and you are more of a feeling person. But I'm open to hear where you think I did any of those things. I'm guessing you aren't going to be able to find any.
Tap. Tap. Tap.
Don't forget though an ugly high ball run is superior to a clean one as long as you make more balls
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
Don't forget though an ugly high ball run is superior to a clean one as long as you make more balls
Player A has a high run of 150 and they run balls they way you think they should be run.
Player B has a high run of 300 and their runs are done all the wrong way in your opinion.
You really think player A is favored to beat player B?
A master will find the simplest answers to the problem.
I expect the player who runs balls well to have a better life-time balls-per-inning average.
Irving Crane won titles in four decades...Willie could run hundreds in his
sixties. The players who rely on the 'hail Marys' only have hot streaks.
They'll have a good career if they change their approach, which many
have as they mature in the game.
BTW, I think you're a good poster....the term 'troll' gets used too often.
( I've never learned a thing from a man who agreed with me ) by?
I think if you get out of line in many games it will help you become much better at kicking and learning your rail game. A loss will result usually. When you get out of line in straight pool it can cost your pattern and lead to a safety or miss (end of run). IMO Mosconi and most here value the clean 150 over a higher 300 that is full of bad positional play (if its even possible). Shot making is a beautiful thing when coming to the table for a 1st shot. It's not going to come up as much when playing proper patterns. I know this line of reasoning is speculation regarding a "700", but is there a particular pro you have in mind whose shot making is better than cue ball control and patterns ? If it's my game I'll take either the 150 or 300 and retire.
Don't forget to wash that down with something...
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
Don't forget to wash that down with something...
Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
I think how someone dominated means a lot. It is kind of discrediting someone for the era that they played in. I have heard these same kind of arguments about baseball players from different eras. Babe Ruth may have stuffed himself with beer and hot dogs, while players today are on strict diets and training programs. However, ESPN still ranks Babe Ruth as the #1 player of all time. If you transplanted Babe Ruth into today's game, he may have some troubles with today's pitching at first...but I believe he would adapt.
I don't know who the best pool player of all time is...nobody does. Mosconi's record could be beaten this week, this year, or never. Even if it did get beat, there would be some kind of situation, and the argument would go on. The game has seemed to be more advanced now a days, but that follows suit with just about every game/sport.
Let's not forget the numerous runs said to be over 526...Cranfield, Mike Uufemia, and Mosconi's again.
Last edited:
there is something to be said about a player that looks good at the table and has great patterns.
Mosconi not only looked good personally but his pattern play was the best.
So to me I would enjoy watching a perfect 100 as opposed to a sloppy 200.
I once had a tape of Jim Rempe running a 150 balls.
He was up and down on every shot,very slow play. I got to the point that I yelled at the TV "shoot the damn shot already" Never did watch the whole thing it was that painful.
Now i have watched Irving Cranes 150 and out several times.He played at a good pace and he not only was fun to watch but also i learned a few things.
Mosconi not only looked good personally but his pattern play was the best.
So to me I would enjoy watching a perfect 100 as opposed to a sloppy 200.
I once had a tape of Jim Rempe running a 150 balls.
He was up and down on every shot,very slow play. I got to the point that I yelled at the TV "shoot the damn shot already" Never did watch the whole thing it was that painful.
Now i have watched Irving Cranes 150 and out several times.He played at a good pace and he not only was fun to watch but also i learned a few things.
This comparison is one of the dumbest things I have ever read here. Congrats.
-Coach
Allow me to answer your question in the form of a question.
Thomas Engert (0 world straight pool titles) has a high run of 492
Thorsten Hohmann (3 world straight pool titles) has a high run of 408 (less than 492)
Do you really think Engert is favored to beat Thorsten?
I get where you are coming from but I think a master finds the best answers, and these may or may not be the simplest. All else being equal though, simpler is better, but all else is very often not equal in this regard. I think if players have pretty close high runs, the one that plays "right" will have the better inning average. But if there is very much difference at all separating their high runs, chances are the guy with the higher run also has the higher inning average. Even if not perfect in shot choices, he sure has to be doing something right to have a higher run. He may just shoot straight enough to more than make up for not always playing the right shot.
I think what some people are missing is that there is more to straight pool than patterns and knowledge. The other half of the game is execution. Sometimes a player can have less knowledge in a game and just shoot so damn straight and play such great position that they will beat the other more knowledgeable person. And vice versa can be true too of course. I think some of today's players can shoot straighter than Mosconi or players of his era, and it is enough to make up for not having quite as good of patterns IMO.
We see this type of thing all the time. The one pocket match with Appleton and Compton is a very recent example. The general consensus is that Compton knows the game better, played the right shots more often, but that Appleton just shoots enough better than Compton to more than make up for it and he wins that match up. So who is the better one pocket player? Appleton is in my mind, because he is going to win more often, even though his knowledge isn't quite as good. This is how I see today's players verses those of Mosconi's era. They could hang right in there as is because they play enough better to make up for the knowledge difference. AND I have no doubt that if they put some time in they could get their knowledge to be just as good also.
This is incredibly flawed logic.
Your whole premise is based on the "fact" that today's players are better at ball pocketing and position play (i.e. "skill' in your words) than Mosconi because today's athletes are bigger and faster than 50 years ago.
(although I'll have to grant you that if you go to any pool league night you will notice that today's pool players certainly are bigger than they were 50 years ago!)
Total rubbish.
Let's see somebody not on steroids hit 60 homeruns in a season with the way less lively baseballs that Babe Ruth had to hit in the giant ball parks he had to play in. Do you have any idea of the dimensions of Yankee stadium back then?
BAck to pool.
They used to play regularly on 5 x 10 tables back then too. The balls weren't remotely as good. the tables weren't as good. All this makes the game more difficult. Having slightly wider pockets brings it back in line as far aas difficulty, yes?
I say let Mosconi grow up today playing on today's equipment with today's cues, and whatever else, and he would kick everybody's ass now too.
You act like all he ever played on was an 8 footer with six inch pockets and he couldn't beat the best player in your league if he played now. How clueless are you?
It only means a lot in that era. It is next to meaningless outside of that. Go back to the 4 minute mile guy. No matter how much he dominated in his time, it doesn't change the fact that he is a 4 minute miler. If everybody in another era is running 3:45, he would suck in that era. How much he dominated in his time wouldn't change that and is immaterial. All that matters when comparing to another era is his actual abilities, not his actual abilities compared to his peers back in his time.